Verse:35 Commentary Commentary

In verses previous to those cited above, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment of robbery and rebellion, as well as the details of injunctions relating to them, were mentioned while the Prescribed Punishment for theft is coming up after three verses later. The three verses which appear in between talk about Taqwa (the fear of Allah), obedience to and the worship of Allah, inducement to Jihad (fighting or struggling in the way of Allah ) as well as the ruinous effects of disbelief, rejection, obstinacy and disobedience. A deeper look into this particular style of the Qur'an would reveal that its oft-recurring approach is not simply to state the letter of the law of penalty and punishment as some cold and coercive command from the law giver and just leave it at that, instead, by taking the approach of an affectionate nourisher and nurturer, it also smooths out the edges of the human mind to prepare it for its ultimate abstention from crimes. And when it awakens the human minds to the awaiting realities of the fear of Allah and the Akhirah (Hereafter) and when it makes the everlasting blessing and bliss of Paradise appear almost in sight, it goes on to change hearts replacing their chronic taste for crime with instant distaste. This is the reason why words similar to: اِتَّقُوا اللہِ (fear Allah) are repeated after stated laws of crime and punishment. Here too, three things have been commanded:

1. The first one is : اِتَّقُوا اللہِ , that is, ` fear Allah', for it is the fear of Allah alone which can really stop human beings from committing crimes openly and secretly.

2. The second one is that is, ` seek the nearness of Allah.' The word, وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ : wasilah, left untranslated, is a derivation from the verbal noun, ` waslun', which means to make effort to become close to someone. This word, whether spelt with the letter, sin سین : وسیلہ) or sad (وصیلہ : صاد), is used almost in the same sense. The only difference is that waslun spelt with the letter, Sad (صاد) refers to becoming close in the absolute sense, while, waslun spelt with the letter, sin, is used to denote seeking to gain nearness with longing and love. Related details appear in the Sihah of Jauhari and in the Mufradat of Raghib al-Isfahani. So, wuslah (وصلہ) or wasilah (وصیلہ) spelt with the letter, Sad, refer to something which brings about nearness or conjunction between two things, whether that nearness comes to be through longing and love, or in some other form. As for the word, wasilah (وسیلہ) spelt with the letter, sin, it means that which brings someone closer to some-one else through liking and love. (Lisan al-` Arab, Mufradat al-Qur'an)

The act of seeking to gain access to Allah - that is,` wasilah' to Allah, to be precise - is anything which brings a servant of Allah nearer to his or her sole object of worship with all longing and love. Therefore, the righteous elders, the Sahabah and Tabi` in have explained the word, ` wasilah', to mean obedience, nearness, faith and righteous conduct. Sayyidna 1Iudhayfah, as reported by Hakim, said : ` Wasilah' means nearness and obedience, and Ibn Jarir has reported the same on the authority of ` Ata', Mujahid and Hasan al-Basri, may the mercy of Allah be upon them all.

Also, Ibn Jarir and others have reported from Qatadah a Tafsir of this verse which is : تَقَرَّبُوا الیہِ بطاعتہِ والعَمَل ھِما یُرضیِیہ . It means: Seek nearness to Him by obedience to Him and by doing deeds which please Him. Therefore, the gist of the explanation of this verse is that one should seek the nearness of Allah through 'lman (faith) and Amal (good deeds).

Appearing in the Musnad of Ahmad, there is a sound (Sahih) hadith in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has been reported to have said: ` Wasilah' is a high rank of Paradise, above which there is no rank. You pray to Almighty Allah that He gives me that rank.

Again, in a narration from Sahih Muslim, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has been reported to have said: When the Mu'adhdhin مؤذَّن): Muezzin) calls the Adhan, you keep saying what he says. Then, recite Durud on me and pray that I be blessed with ` Wasilah.'

These ahadith tell us that ` Wasilah' is a special rank of Jannah (Paradise) which is identified particularly with the Holy Prophet . As for the command to seek and find ` Wasilah' given to every believer, it seems to be, on the surface, contrary to this particularity. But, the answer is fairly clear that the way the highest station of guidance is special to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who always prayed for it, but, its elementary and intermediary ranks of guidance are common and open to all Muslims - similarly, the high rank of ` Wasilah' is particular to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and all ranks after it are open and common to all believers through the linkage of their love for him.

In his Letters, the famous renovator of the second millennium of Islam in India, Mujaddid Alf-Thani, and Qadi Thana'ullah of Panipat, in his Tafsir Mazhari, have both warned that the sense of longing and love embedded in the word, ` Wasilah', clearly shows that advancement in the ranks of ` Wasilah' depends on the love for Almighty Allah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم - and love comes through the following of Sunnah, the words and deeds of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . This is because Al mighty Allah says: فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّـهُ (Say [ 0 Prophet ], "If you do love Allah, follow me; Allah shall love you ..."- 3:31). Therefore, the more particular one is in following the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in acts of worship, transactions, dealings, morals, social living, practically in all departments of life, the more beloved of Allah one shall be, and the more widening becomes the gyre of this love, the closer and nearer to Allah one shall be.

Now, after this lexical explanation of the word, ` Wasilah,' and the exegetical notes from the Sahabah and Tabi` in, we do know how every-thing which becomes the means of achieving the pleasure and nearness of Allah is, for a human being, the ` Wasilah' of becoming close to Allah. As included in it are faith ('Iman) and good deeds (al-a` mal alsalih الاعمال اصالح), so included therein are the company and the love of prophets and righteous people as well, for that too is one of the causes of the pleasure of Allah - and so, praying to Allah Almighty by making them a Wasllah' should be correct, as was done by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ ، when he, at the time of a famine, making Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ ` Wasilah,' made a prayer for rains before Almighty Allah. The prayer was answered.

It is reported that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had himself taught a blind Sahabi to pray with the words which are as follows : اَللَّھُمَّ اِنِّی اَسأَلُک وَ اَتَوَجَّہُ اِلَیکَ بِنَبِیِّکَ مُحَمَّدِ نَبِیِّ الرَّحمَۃِ ; ( O Allah, I seek from You, and I ask for Your attention with (the Wasilah of) Your Prophet, Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. (Manar)

3. Before taking up the third command, that of Jihad, in this verse (35), it will be useful to recollect the first command, that of Taqwa, then the command to seek nearness to Allah through faith and good deeds, and now in the end it was said: وَجَاهِدُوا فِي سَبِيلِهِ (and carry out Jihad in His way). Though Jihad was included under ` good deeds' yet it was to spell out the higher status of Jihad among ` good deeds' that Jihad was mentioned separately and distinctly - as confirmed by a saying of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم which is: وَ ذِروَۃُ سَنَامِہِ الجِھَادُ that is, Jihad is the highest peak of Islam. Moreover, there is yet another element of wisdom why Jihad has been mentioned distinctly at this place. It will be recalled that the unlawfulness of spreading disorder on the earth, alongwith its worldly and other-worldly punishment, was mentioned in previous verses (32, 33). Since Jihad too, given a surface view of it (or, as those allergic to it would love to believe), appears to be some form of disorder on the earth (al-fasad fi al-ard), therefore, it was possible that someone ignorant could just fail to understand the difference between Jihad (fighting in the way of Allah) and Fasad (spreading disorder). To offset this possibility, the spreading of disorder on the earth was for-bidden first and it was after that that the command of Jihad was mentioned distinctly and the difference between the two was pointed out by the addition of the words : فِي سَبِيلِهِ (in His way). This is because the killing and plundering of the property of people in robberies and rebel-lions is for the sole purpose of personal aggrandizement and other nefarious objectives while, should it ever come to happen in a Jihad, it will still be for the initial purpose of upraising the Word of Allah and eliminating oppression and tyranny. There is a world of difference between the two.

Moving on to the second (36) and the third (37) verses, one notices the manner in which the grave curse of Kufr (disbelief), Shirk (the associating of partners in the Divinity of Allah) and sin has been pointed out. It is so poignant that even a little reflection on it could bring an instant revolution in the lives of men and women of such persuasion compelling them to abandon all Kufr and Shirk and sin. To explain the curse of sinful living a little further, it can be said that sins in which one gets involved usually is because of personal desires and needs or for the desires and needs of family and children. Since their Fulfillment comes through an increase in wealth and property, one goes after amassing wealth and property without making any distinc-tion between what is Halal (lawful) and what is Haram (unlawful) in it. In these verses, Almighty Allah has censured the acquisition mania of such people which will prove to be futile in the ultimate analysis because its cure lies in realizing that things of comfort collected to satisfy a short lived span of life by working hard day and night still remain unattained. More and more stays to be the order of every other day in life. What begins must end and this race of gold and greed will also end when the punishment of the Doomsday will appear in sight and, at that time, if these people were to offer all they had collected in the mortal world, wealth and property, things and things of comfort, taste and value, offer all of it in return for their release from the punishment, then, this would not be possible anymore. Even if the wager is increased higher, suppose everything of value were to be owned by one person, nay, let us say twice as much, and if he were to offer all of it to have his release from the punishment, still then, nothing would be accepted from him and he will not have his deliverance from the punishment of the Hereafter. Verse:36 Commentary - - - Verse:37 Commentary That this punishment would be everlasting for disbelievers has been made clear through the third verse (37). Verse:38 Commentary The fourth verse (38) reverts to the subject of the punishment of crimes where the Islamic Legal Punishment of theft has been described. The punishment for theft belongs to the category of Hudud which is one of the three kinds of Islamic Legal Punishments dis-cussed earlier (under the Tafsir of verses 33 and 34). Since the Holy Qur'an has itself fixed this punishment, it has not been left at the discretion of the relevant authorities. The Holy Qur'an has determined it as the Right of Allah (Haqqullah), therefore, it is called the Hadd of Sariqah (The Islamic Legal Punishment of Theft). The words of the verse are:

وَالسَّارِ‌قُ وَالسَّارِ‌قَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

As for a man or woman who commits theft, cut off the hands of both to recompense them for what they earned, a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Noteworthy here is the fact that the address in Qur'anic injunctions is generally to men wherein women are also understood as included consequentially. In Salah, Sawm, Hajj, Zakah and in all injunctions of the Shari' ah, this is the general operating principle of Qur'an and Sunnah. But, in the case of the punishment for theft and adultery, the text here does not limit itself to addressing men only, in-stead of which it addresses its command to both sexes mentioning them separately.

One reason for doing so is that this is a matter of Hudud in which the least doubt could cause it to be dropped. Therefore, women were not left as implied under the address. They were, rather, mentioned explicitly.

Understanding the Islamic Law of Sariqah (Theft)

Something else we should find out at this stage is the very sense of the word, 'Sariqah' and its definition as determined in the Shari` ah of Islam. According to Al-Qamus, the Arabic Lexicon, if anyone takes what belongs to someone else, from a secured place, without his or her permission, clandestinely, it is called "Sariqah." And this is its Islamic legal definition too. So, in the light of this definition, in order that Sariqah be proved, a few ingredients must exist:

1. BEING PRIVATELY- OWNED: The property concerned must have been owned privately by an individual or group. The stealer should own nothing in it, nor should there be any doubt of such owner-ship, nor should there be things in it in which the rights of common people are equal, such as, institutions of public welfare and their be-longings. This tells us that should someone take something in which he or she has ownership rights, or there is a doubt of such ownership, or in which the rights of common people are equal, then, the Hadd of Sariqah, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment, will not be enforced against the stealer. However, the relevant authority of the time could enforce punitive punishment (Ta` zir) at his discretion.

2. BEING SECURED: It means that the stolen property must be secured as in a locked house or under a security guard. Property not in a secured place, if picked up by someone, would also not render that person liable to be charged with the Hadd of Sariqah. However, should there be even a doubt in the property concerned being secure, even then, the Hadd of Sariqah will stand dropped. Considerations of sin and punitive punishment (Ta` zir) are a separate matter.

3. BEING WITHOUT PERMISSION: If a person, who has been given the permission to take or pick up and use the property concerned, chooses to take it away for good, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed. And should there be even a doubt about the stealer having such permission, the Hadd will stand dropped.

4. TAKING CLANDESTINELY : This is because the looting of someone's property openly is no theft. It is robbery, the punishment for which has already been stated. The point is if it is not by stealth, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed on the person concerned.

After having heard the details involved in all these conditions, you would have already realized that theft as known to us carries a general and wide sense. Every single person who indulges in it is not legally liable to the Hadd of Sariqah, that is, the punishment of cutting hands. Instead of that, this Prescribed Punishment shall be enforced against that particular form of theft in which all these ingredients have been found present.

Along with it, you also know that situations in which the Hadd for theft is dropped, it is not at all necessary that the criminal would go scot-free. In fact, the relevant authority of the time could award punitive punishment against him at his discretion, which could even be physical, as that of lashes.

In the same way, let it not be surmised that, in situations where the absence of some condition of Sariqah restrains the enforcement of the Hadd Punishment, the act itself would become legally permissible and lawful - because, as explained earlier, we are not talking about sin and the punishment of the Hereafter here. The concern here is that of the temporal punishment, and that too of a particular kind of punishment. Otherwise, the property of a person taken without his pleasure and permission, no matter how, shall remain Harm (unlawful), causing punishment in the Hereafter - as clarified in the verse : لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ (And do not eat up each other's property by false means - 2:188).

Also worth noting here is the fact that the words used by the Qur'an in the matter of theft are the same as those used about the punishment of adultery. But, the difference is that, in the matter of theft, the mention of man appears first and that of woman follows, while, in the case of adultery, the arrangement has been reversed where woman has been mentioned first. Thus, in the punishment of theft, it was said: 0, r), (a man or a woman who commits theft - وَالسَّارِ‌قُ وَالسَّارِ‌قَةُ while, in the punishment of adultery, it was said: الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي (the woman and the man guilty of fornication - 24:2). Commentators have indicated many elements of wisdom in this reversal of word order, but the one that appeals most is that the crime of theft when committed by man as compared to that committed by a woman is more grave because Almighty Allah has blessed him with the kind of strength to earn his living which a woman does not have. Should a man who, de-spite that so many doors of earning his living are open to him, stoop so low as to commit the disgraceful crime of theft, really increases the gravity of his sin. And when it comes to the matter of adultery, Allah Almighty has blessed a woman with natural modesty and secured atmosphere which leaves no reason for her to fall into the lower levels of immodesty which would be a grave crime indeed. Therefore, in theft, the mention of man precedes while, in adultery, that of woman.

After stating the Hadd حدّ Punishment for theft in this verse (38), two sentences have been added. The first sentence is: جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا (to recompense them for the evil deed they committed and the second sentence is: نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ (a deterrent from Allah). The later is composed of the words, ` Nakal' (a deterrent) and ` min Allah' (from Allah). Lexically, the Arabic word, ` Nakal' means a punishment which is exemplary, something which teaches a lesson to others as well so that they too abandon any intentions of committing crimes. Therefore, a translation of this word in the idiom of any other language would have to have a sense of lesson and dissuasion both. The hint given here is that the stern punishment of cutting hands is based on a consideration which is special and wise. In simple words, it amounts to punishing one and chastening the rest so that this ugly crime is eradicated totally. Then, by adding ` min Allah' (from Allah), a pointed reference has been made to yet another subject of importance, that is, there are two ways of looking at the crime of theft. Firstly, a person may take the property belonging to someone else without any right to do so which inflicts in-justice on the later. Secondly, this person acted counter to the command of Allah. Keeping the first aspect in sight, this punishment is the right of the victim of injustice which requires that the punishment, if pardoned by the holder of the right, will stand forgiven - and this is the customary practice in all cases of Qisas (Even Retaliation). Now looking at it from the second aspect, this punishment is for having acted contrary to the command of Allah. It requires that this punishment will not be forgiven even if it were to be forgiven by the person who has been the victim of the theft - unless, of course, forgiven by Al-mighty Allah Himself. This is called Hadd or Hudud in the terminology of the Shari` ah of Islam. So, by determining the second aspect through the addition of ` min Allah' (from Allah), the hint given is that this punishment is Hadd - not Qisas, that is, in a manner of saying, the punishment has been awarded for what constitutes a Crime against the State! Therefore, even if the person who is the victim of the theft were to forgive, the punishment would still not be dropped.

Finally, towards the end of the verse (38), by saying: وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (And Allah is Mighty, Wise), answer has been given to the doubt so widely entertained these days, that is, this punishment is very harsh. Not resting at that, there are the loudmouthed and the uninformed among them who would not even fight shy of saying that this punishment is savage. Refuge with Allah! These words are there to point out that the introduction of this severe punishment is not only that it is an out-come of Allah's being Mighty and Powerful, but that it also based on His being Wise as well. The Islamic Legal Punishments which the modern highbrows of the West label as harsh and savage shall be taken up in details with comments on the wisdom behind them, their need and benefits, soon after we have completed the explanation of the present set of verses. Verse:39 Commentary The next verse (39) says:

مَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ‌ رَّ‌حِيمٌ ﴿39﴾

And whoever repents after his transgression and corrects himself, then Allah shall relent towards him. Surely, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.

It will be recalled that forgiveness was also mentioned in connection with the Prescribed Punishment for robbery appearing a few verses earlier (34) - and forgiveness has been mentioned after the punishment for theft as well. But, the statement of forgiveness at both places has a particular difference and it is on the basis of this difference that the sense of forgiveness in both punishments has been taken differently by Muslim jurists. While ordaining the punishment for robbery, giving an exception, Almighty Allah has said: إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَقْدِرُ‌وا عَلَيْهِمْ (except those who repent before you overpower them - 5:34) the outcome of which is that the Hadd Punishment for robbery mentioned in the verse provides an exemption whereby the one who repents - before robbers are overpowered and arrested by the government - shall have his Hadd Punishment forgiven. As for the forgiveness mentioned after the punishment for theft, it does not have the exemption from this temporal punishment. It is rather in terms of the Hereafter that this repentance shall be accepted towards which a clear indication exists in the words: فَإِنَّ اللَّـهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ (then Allah shall relent towards him). In other words, the relevant ruler of the time will not abandon the Hadd Pun-ishment because of this repentance, instead of that, Almighty Allah will, by forgiving their crime, grant deliverance to them from the punishment of the Hereafter. Therefore, Muslim jurists almost unanimously agree that the Hadd Punishment for robbery shall not be en-forced on robbers who repent before they are arrested. But, should a thief were to forsake and repent from stealing after having committed a theft - whether before or after arrest - then, the Hadd of Sariqah, the Islamic Legal Punishment, which is a temporal punishment, will not be forgiven. That the sin is forgiven and deliverance from the punishment of the Hereafter has been achieved is not contrary to this. Verse:40 Commentary The later verse (40) says:

أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْ‌ضِ يُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَغْفِرُ‌ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ‌ ﴿40﴾

Do you know that to Allah alone belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whomsoever He wills and He forgives whomsoever He wills. And Allah is powerful over everything.

This verse is linked with and homogeneous to previous verses which feature stringent injunctions of the Islamic Legal Punishments for robbery and theft. A shallow look at these injunctions could give the false impression of their being contradictory to human dignity. It is to re-move this doubt that Almighty Allah has, in this verse, initially stated that He alone is the real Master of the entire universe. Then, He says that He alone is the Absolute Power. In between, comes the statement that it is not only that He punishes. He forgives as well, and that forgiveness and punishment depend on His Wisdom, for the way He is the Absolute Master and the Absolute Power, so is He Absolutely Wise too. There is no human power which can guage the extents of His mastery and domain so shall there be no human reason which can fully fathom the countless manifestations of His Wisdom - and that which it would pass on to human beings by virtue of pondering through principles is sufficient enough to put their hearts at peace.

What is Benign and at is Savage?

People in the West and those influenced by their education and culture commonly object that Islamic punishments are harsh. And as pointed out a little earlier, there are some heedless people who do not even hesitate to say that these punishments are savage and undignified.

Before we deal with this matter, it would be useful to keep what has been stated earlier in sight. We know that the Holy Qur'an has it-self determined and fixed the punishments for only four crimes which are called Hadd, in the terminology of the Islamic Shari' ah. The punishment of robbery is the cutting of the right hand and the left foot; the punishment of theft is the cutting of the right hand from the wrist; the punishment of adultery is one hundred lashes in some situations, and stoning to death in some others; the punishment of making a false accusation of adultery is eighty lashes. The fifth Islamic Prescribed Punishment (Hadd) is that of drinking which is eighty lashes as fixed under the consensus of the Sahabah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . With the sole exception of these five crimes, the punishment of all other crimes has been left to the discretion of the ruler of the time so that the relevant judge may award the kind and amount of punishment with due consideration of the crime, the criminal and the circumstances. This is a matter in which it is also possible that some particular system de-signed to delimit and apportion punishments is established in consultation with those fit to guide and advise, and Qadis or judges are bound with it. This is what happens these days when penal laws are generally enacted through legislative assemblies, and Qadis or judges award punishments within limits already identified. Although, in the five crimes the punishment for which has been fixed by the Qur'an, or through a consensus (Ijma`), and in which no individual or party or assembly has any right of alteration or substitution, but, in them too, if the proof of the crime is not available through the Law of Evidence prescribed by the Shari` ah, or there be the proof of the crime but conditions under which this punishment is enforced may not be complete, and the fact of the crime stands proved in the sight of the Qadi or judge, still then, in that situation too, the Hadd Punishment (حَد شرعی) will not be enforced, instead of which, the punishment given will be punitive (Ta` ziri). Along with it, there is the standing rule of Islamic Law that the benefit of doubt goes to the person accused of a crime. A doubt about anything in the proof of the crime or the conditions of the crime causes the Hadd Punishment to be dropped. But, in the event that there be the necessary proof of crime available, the punishment given will be punitive (Ta'ziri).

This tells us that there will be many more situations in which the Hadd Punishment will not be enforced and, in their place, punitive punishments will be awarded subject to the discretion of the ruler of the time. Since punitive punishments have not been predetermined by the Shari'ah, they can be changed or tailored to suit the needs of every time and every circumstance just like the general laws of the land. Therefore, at least, in this field, nobody has room for any objection. Now the 'debate' is reduced to the punishments of five crimes only, and that too, in their particular situations. For example, let us take theft and see that the punishment of cutting the hand has not been imposed by the Shari` ah on every theft, in an absolute sense - that is, theft as we know it in our common usage. This is no Sariqah. Sariqah, the crime which is punished by cutting the hand, has a peculiar definition of its own, details about which have appeared earlier (under the subheading: ` Understanding the Islamic Legal Punishment of Sariqah' ) and which can be briefly defined here as the taking out of someone's property from a secured place, by breaking the security arrangements, unlawfully and secretly. According to this definition, many forms recognized as common thefts stand eliminated from the standard definition of the Hadd of Sariqah. For instance, the condition of a secured place tells us that property stolen from commonly used public places such as Masjid, masalla of ` Id (area earmarked for the large congregational prayers on the occasion of ` Idul-Fitr and ` Idul-Adha), Park, Club, Railroad Station, Waiting Room, Train, Airplane etc., or stealing fruits hanging on trees, or stealing honey will not cause the Hadd of Sariqah to be imposed against the thief, instead of that, punitive punishment will be given to the culprit as generally done in most countries. Similarly, take the example of a person you have allowed to enter your house - whether he is your servant or maid or a worker on wages or a builder on contract or a friend or relative - now should he take some-thing away from your house, then, though he is included under the definition of common theft and is deserving of the punitive punishment for it, yet, the Islamic Legal Punishment of cutting the hand will not be enforced on him - because he entered the house with your per-mission and the arrangement of legal security is not complete as far as he is concerned.

Similarly, incidents like someone picked someone else's pocket, or snatched away cash or jewellery from someone's hand, or extracted something by fraud, or went back on his word when asked to return what he had agreed to keep in trust are all unlawful and impermissible, and definitely included under customary thefts, but, the punishment for all these is punitive which depends upon the discretion of the ruler. Since these are not included under the definition of legally culpable 'Sariqah,' no amputation of hand will take place.

Likewise, the hand of a stealer of coffin clothes will not be cut be-cause, first of all, it is in no secure place, then the shroud itself is not in the ` ownership' of the deceased, though this act of the stealer is gravely unlawful. For this, he will have his punitive punishment at the discretion of the ruler. In the same manner, if someone commits a theft in what was jointly owned property in which the stealer too had some share - whether it was a joint property from inheritance or from commercial partnership - it is a situation in which, since some part of the ownership of the stealer is also included therein, the doubt about such ownership will cause the Islamic Legal Punishment (Hadd) to be dropped and punitive punishment will be given.

As for all these conditions, they relate to the actual completion of the crime, a brief outline of which you have seen above. Now what comes next is the completion of the proof. In this matter of enforcing Hudud, the Shari'ah has also made its Law of Evidence unmistakable by keeping it very distinct and cautious as compared to what concerns other common matters. In the punishment of adultery, imposed there is the condition of four witnesses in place of two - and that too, while they give such eye witness as would not leave any word doubtful there-in. Though, in the case of theft, only two witnesses are sufficient, yet, even for these two, some additional conditions, other than those commonly required in witnessing, have been imposed. For example, there are other matters in which, if needed, the Qadi or judge has the option to accept the witness of a sinning person if he is satisfied that the per-son, despite his being a sinner practically, does not lie. But, in the case of Hudud, the Qadi or judge does not have the right to accept his witness. Common matters can be judicated based on the evidence given by one man and two women. But, in Hudud, the evidence of two men is necessary. In common cases, the Shari'ah does not consider Ta-madi (being time-barred) as valid excuse - a witness given by someone can be accepted irrespective of the time lag since the event occurred. But, in Hudud, if a testimony is not given immediately, instead of that, was given after one month or was delayed more than that, then, it will not be acceptable.

This brief outline of the conditions of the enforcement of the Hadd of Sariqah appearing above has been taken from the highly authoritative book of the Hanafi Fiqh, Bada'i` al-Sana'i`.

The outcome of all these conditions is that the Hadd of Shari' ah, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment, will be enforced only in a situation when it is strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure determined by the inviolable Shari' ah of Islam that the crime, as well as, its proof are found conclusively complete - and so complete too as would leave no aspect of it doubtful. This tells us that the Shari'ah has done two things simultaneously - it has, on the one hand, fixed the punishment of these crimes, as required in its wisdom, being strict as they are; but, on the other hand, it has also taken extreme precaution in the enforcement of the Hudud of Islamic Law. The Law of Evidence as applicable to Hudud is also different from the Law of Evidence as applicable to common matters, and is certainly based on extreme precaution. The slightest shortfall in it renders the Hadd of the Shari` ah to be changed into punitive punishment. Similarly, in the event of any shortcoming being found in determining the completion of the crime, the Hadd of the Shari' ah is dropped and punitive punishment gets activated in its place. The practical outcome of this is that the far-out occasion of enforcing the Hudud of the Shari` ah would present itself only very rarely ( or, as they would say in charged English, only once in a blue moon! ) Under normal conditions, even in crimes which fall under Hudud, the punishments given are punitive. But, in a case, where the completion of the crime and the completion of the proof con-join, even though in one per cent cases, the punishment given is very stringent, something which would inspire awe, something mindboggling and heart-rending, something which would cause the next as-pirant cold feet before even touching a crime like that. This kind of punishment, notwithstanding objections, becomes the source of eradication of crimes and the blessing of public peace for ever. This stands in stark contrast against societies built around penal laws with which hardened criminals keep playing as some sort of sport they enjoy.

They sit in jails making programs to do what they have been doing all along much better next time they are out there. There are countries where the Hudud of the Shari` ah are imposed even now. A look at conditions which prevail there would bring the reality in the open. You do not see there a lot of people with amputated hands, nor is there an event of stoning to death (Rajm) for years and years together. But, such is the standing awe and dread and fear of these punishments in arts that theft, robbery and immodesty do not seem to exist there. Muslims have the first-hand and direct knowledge about conditions in Saudi Arabia because Muslims of all classes and countries have the good fortune of being there in connection with Hajj or ` Umrah. Five times every day, everyone sees that shops and stores are open. Merchandise worth millions is lying there and their owner leaves for the Sacred Mosque at prayer time without closing them - and comes back from there only after having made his prayers in perfect peace. He never has any scruples about anything having disappeared from where he had left it. Then, this is not a matter of one day. This is a matter of whole life and how it goes on. Do this in any ` civilized' country of the world, you will end up with hundreds of thefts and robberies in a single day. Strange are the ways of those who claim to be the standard bearers of civilization and human rights. They are compassionate to professional criminals but they have no mercy for the whole humanity harassed by them. In cold reality, showering mercy on one criminal amounts to being tyrannical to the whole humanity. This attitude is the greatest cause of disturbing public peace and tranquility. This is the reason why He, who is the Lord of all universes and worlds, and who provides sustenance to the virtuous and the vicious, the pious and the polytheists, the saints and the sinners, and who gives to snakes, scorpions, lions and wolves their livelihood, and whose mercy extends to all, it was He who, when He revealed the religious laws of Hudud in the Qur'an, also said along with it: وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَ‌أْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّـهِ that is, ` do not show mercy to these criminals in enforcing the Hudud of Allah.' On the other hand, He declared Qisas (the Law of Even Retaliation) to be the life of humanity: وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ that is, ` for you in Qisas there is life, 0 people of understanding.' It appears that those who oppose and obstruct the institution of Islamic Hudud, just do not wish that crimes be eradicated. Otherwise, as far as mercy is concerned, who else, if not Islam, can be the teacher? It is Islam which has recognized the right of even enemies and killers in the heat of the battlefield where it demands: Hold your hands before women, hold your hands before children, hold your hands before the aged, and do not kill the religiously observing not fighting against you on the battlefield but are busy with worship in their way.

What is most astonishing is the cold fact that objections against Islamic punishments are raised by, of all the people, those have their hands red with the blood of hundreds and thousands of innocent and blame-free human beings of Hiroshima even to this day, human beings who may have never dreamed of fighting and killing in a battlefield and included among them are women and children and old people, a whole lot of human beings indeed! And these are the people whose fury has still not subsided even after the tragedy of Hiroshima and who are still going ahead with all sorts of goals and projects and exper-iments to build and stock nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Other than this, there is not much we can say, except raise our hands in prayer - May Allah remove the curtains of selfishness from their eyes and may He guide them towards the true Islamic methods of establishing peace in the world.l

1. This is the basis of the nuclear conflict among nations. The haves want to keep what they have and stop others from having it. If others have it, that will be ` proliferation'. The power to destroy must stay with the powerful. Because, powerful is responsible. But, was it? So, being powerful, or mutually cooperating powerful, is no guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used. Human beings of one country sitting on their nukes and talking about world peace is hardly believable.

Let's say Amen to the prayer.

A word about the use of the word, ` deterrent' with nuclear weapons. They are there, just in case ... They are supposed not to be used first. They are for retaliation. The having of nuclear weapons means that everybody should behave, or else! So, they are ` deterrents', telling people to be careful and not mess around. So human beings can have deterrents to check the irresponsible behaviour of others, the behaviour of ` rogue' states, for example. Now, if God were to enforce His own deterrent against criminals, robbers and thieves and fornicators, in His wisdom, how could that become ` savage' overnight? Or, is it that what a set of human beings can do in their ` self-interest', cannot be done by God, in His Wisdom? ... Mercy! (Tr.) Verse:41 Commentary Sequence of the Verses

Continued from the third Section of Surah al-Ma'idah was the subject around the People of the Book. In between, some other subjects, though very few, appeared where particularly appropriate. Now, the text resumes that subject again which goes on further ahead. The People of the Book already had two groups among them. Joining them was a third group. They were really Jews who had become Muslims hypocritically. They would show their Muslim face before Muslims but when they sat with their coreligionist Jews, they mocked Islam and Muslims. The three verses appearing above concern the doings of these three groups which show that they prefer their desires and opinions over the injunctions and instructions of Almighty Allah and keep trying to interpret and mould them to their own choices. These verses tell us about the disgrace and evil end of such people in this world as well as in the Hereafter. As a corollary, there appear some guiding principles and injunctions for Muslims.

The Background of the Revelation

Two events which are the cause of the revelation of the cited verses relate to Jewish tribes who lived in the vicinity of Madinah during the blessed period of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . One of these events was that of Qatl and Qisas (killing and retaliation) and the other, that of Zina (fornication) and its punishment.

It is not hidden from anyone who knows history (as it is) that tyranny prevailed all over before the advent of Islam. Mastery was for the powerful and slavery, for the weak. The powerful and the influential had their laws different from the weak and the meek. Not too far is an extension of that approach in our own time where some of our so-called civilized countries had separate laws for the black and the white. But, across this bridge of history, came the blessed benefactor of humanity, the Arab Prophet, may the blessings of Allah be upon him, and peace, who alone erased these distinctions. It was he who first declared equality of rights for the progeny of Adam and taught human beings their essential lesson in humanity.

Before the coming of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to Madinah, there lived on the outskirts of Madinah two tribes of Jews, Banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir. Out of the two, Banu Nadir were more powerful and wealthy than Banu Qurayzah who constantly suffered at their hands and could do nothing about it. Matters reached to the point when Banu Nadir forced Banu Qurayzah to agree to a disgraceful pact whereby if a man from Banu Nadir were to kill a man from Banu Qurayzah, they would not have the right to take his life in Qisas (retaliation). Instead, stipulated the pact, they will receive only seventy Wasaq of dates as his blood money (Wasaq, Arab measure of weight approximately equivalent to 195.30 kg). As for the case being the re-verse of it, if a man from Banu Qurayzah were to kill a man from Banu Nadir, the law will be that the killer will be killed and, on top of it, blood money will be taken, and that too, twice as much as compared to what Banu Nadir were entitled to, that is, one hundred and forty Wasaq of dates. Attached along with these were more conditions such as, if a woman from Banu Nadir were to be killed, a man from Banu Qurayzah will be killed in retaliation; and if the person killed were to be a man, two men from Banu Qurayzah will be killed in retaliation; and if a slave from Banu Nadir has been killed, a free man from Banu Qurayzah will be killed in retaliation; and if one hand of a man from Banu Nadir has been cut by someone, two hands of a man from Banu Qurayzah will be cut; if one ear has been cut, two ears of their man will be cut. This was ` law' before Islam as it prevailed between these two tribes and Banu Qurayzah being weak had no choice but to go along with it.

When the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم migrated to Madinah, it became Dar al-Islam, a homeland of Muslims. These two tribes had not embraced Islam upto that time nor were they bound to follow Islamic law under any treaty obligation. But, they were observing the justice and common good brought in by Islamic law from a distance. During this period, it so happened that a man from Banu Qurayzah killed a certain man from Banu Nadir. According to the pact mentioned above, Banu Nadir demanded the doubled blood money (Diyat) from Banu Qurayzah. As said earlier, Banu Qurayzah were neither a part of the Muslim community nor did they have any existing pact with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . But, they were Jews who had among them many learned people as well. They knew on the strength of the prophecies of the Torah that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is the promised Last Prophet the glad tiding of which was given by the Torah. But, they had not declared their faith in him because of religious prejudice or temporal greed. Since they were watching that the Last Prophet's religion is a standard bearer of human equality and justice, they used it as a crutch to get rid of the tyranny of Banu Nadir. They refused to pay the doubled blood money on the plea that they belonged to the same family, same country, and same religion, that is, Judaism, and that they were not going to tolerate the unjust treatment meted out to them because of their weakness against tyranny right upto that day.

This reply enraged Banu Nadir to the point of an imminent war. But, later, on the advice of some elders, it was decided that this matter should be taken to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم for his decision.

Banu Qurayzah could not have it any better. They already knew that the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not going to allow the injustice of Banu Nadir to continue. As for Banu Nadir, though they did agree to mutual conciliation talks under a situation of duress, but they also backed it up with a conspiracy when they sent a group of people to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم before their case was to be presented in his court. These people were really their co-religionists, that is, they were Jews but kept in touch with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم by hypocritically assuring him of their Islam. Their objective was to somehow find out the view of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم before he hears and decides the case. So, the mandate and instruction given to these people was that they should accept what he said subject to the condition that it was in favour of their demand, and in the eventuality that his judgment turned out to be contrary to this, they were told not to make any commitments about its acceptance.

This event describing the cause of the revelation of these verses has been reported in detail by al-Baghawi while the Musnad of Ahmad and Abu Dawud have reported its summary from Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn ` Abbas ؓ (Mazhari).

Similar to this, there is another event, that of Zina (fornication). Reporting its details, al-Baghawi says that it took place among the Jews of Khaybar. According to the punishment prescribed by the Torah, the couple involved had to be stoned to death. But, both of them belonged to some influential family. The Jews, acting in accordance with their old habit, looked for a softening of the punishment for them knowing that the religion of Islam gives leaves and concessions liberally. Based on this, they assumed that Islam would reduce this punishment as well. So, the people of Khaybar sent a message to their clansmen of Banu Qurayzah asking them to have this case settled by Muhammad and along with it, they sent the two accused as well. Their motivation behind this action was no different as they too in-structed their clansmen to accept the verdict of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم if the punishment awarded by him turned out to be light, but they were to reject it if the case was otherwise. At first, Banu Qurayzah were reluctant about the proposal. They did not know how the case will be decided by him and once they were there, they would have to accept the verdict. But, after further consultations, they decided that some of their chiefs should take the accused couple to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and request him to decide the case.

So, a deputation of Ka'b ibn Ashraf and others accompanied by the accused couple came to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . They asked: ` If a married man and a married woman are involved in adultery, what punishment do they get?' He said, ` Will you accept my verdict?' They said that they would. At that moment, Sayyidna Jibra'il appeared with a command from Almighty Allah which announced that their punishment was stoning to death. When these people heard this verdict, they were taken aback. They refused to accept it.

Sayyidna Jibra'il (علیہ السلام) advised the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمٍ that he should ask these people to appoint Ibn Surya as the arbitrator before deciding whether to accept or not to accept the verdict. Then, he told him about Ibn Surya and his identity. He asked the members of the deputation if they knew the young man who is white but blind in one eye. He lived in Fidak and His name was Ibn Surya. Everyone confirmed that they did. He asked, ` What do you think about him?' They said, ` Of the learned people among Jews, there is no scholar greater than him on this earth.' He said, ` Call him in.'

So, he came. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم asked him on oath, ` What is the injunction of the Torah in this case? He said, ` By the Being in whose name you have put me on oath, if you had not put me on oath in that manner, and I did not have the apprehension that a false statement on my part would make the Torah burn me, then, I would have not revealed the reality. The reality is that the Torah too, like the injunction in Islam, does carry the command that both of them should be killed by stoning (Rajm).'

The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ` What has come upon you now that you act against the injunction of the Torah?' Ibn Surya replied, ` The fact of the matter is that, religiously and legally, this is the punishment of adultery with us. But, since a prince of ours got involved in this crime, we showed leniency to him and let him go. We did not stone him to death. Later, the same crime was committed by an ordinary man. People responsible decided to stone him to death. The sup-porters of the criminal protested demanding that the Jewish Legal Punishment decided for this man should be given to the prince first, otherwise, they threatened, they would resist and block the execution of the punishment against him. When things dragged on, they sat together and compromised on just one light punishment for all, leaving the injunction of the Torah aside. So, we came up with a punishment which required some beating and the taking out of a procession with the culprits having their faces blackened with soot (a symbol of disgrace). This, then, became the usual custom with everyone.'

Commentary

We now know the details of the background in which the present three verses (41-43), and others which will follow, were revealed. Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour pattern of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

When the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took up residence in Madinah, these people started noticing changes. The Islamic Rule of Law was working as a unique system. It was simple, open and full of conveniences. Then, it had a reasonable set-up to eradicate crimes through appropriate punishments. Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic Law while, at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishes, they would leave it at that. Since the events of this nature had caused pain to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he has been comforted in the opening sentence of the verse that he should not grieve about their behaviour because it would finally turn out to be good for him.

Then, Allah Almighty let him know that these people were not making him a judge in their case sincerely. Their intentions were mischievous. Then, in the later verse (42), he was given the choice to either decide or avoid their case as he wished. He was also assured that they will not be able to harm him in any way, if he wished to avoid them. This is what the verse: فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِ‌ضْ عَنْهُمْ (judge between them or turn away from them) means. Then, in the part of the verse which follows immediately, it was stated that should he elect to decide their case, the guideline given is that the decision has to be just. In other words, it meant that he was to decide the case in accordance with his Shari` ah because, after the coming of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ، all former religious codes and their laws stand abrogated, except those which have been retained in the Holy Qur'an and the Shari'ah of the Last Prophet. It is for this reason that the act of deciding a case on the basis of another law, custom or usage contrary to the Divine Law has been declared to be injustice, sin and disbelief in later verses.

Judicial Process for Non-Muslims in an Islamic State

At this point, it should be borne in mind that these Jews who sent their cases to the court of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not believe in him or his Shari` ah nor were they Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens) protected by Muslims. However, they did have a no-war pact with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . This is why he was given the option to either turn away from them, or give a decision in their case according to his Shari` ah because no responsibility for them falls on the Islamic state. If they were Dhimmis (protected non-Muslim citizens of a Muslim State) and approached the Islamic government, the responsible Muslim official would have been duty-bound to give a verdict in their case. Avoiding it would have not been permissible because watching over their rights and removing injustice done to them is the duty of an Islamic government. Therefore, in a verse which will appear a little later (49), it has also been said: وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ (And judge between them by what Allah has sent down and do not follow their de-sires ...) In other words, it means: If these people bring their case to you, decide it in accordance with your Shari` ah.

No choice has been given in this verse. Instead, the command is to decide as prescribed. In Ahkam al-Qur'an, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (رح) has accomodated the sense of both these verses by suggesting that the first verse where a choice has been given relates to non-Muslims who are not citizens or Dhimmis of the Islamic state but continue to live where they are under a pact, such as, the position of the tribes of Banu Qurayzah and Banu Nadir. They had nothing to do with the Islamic state except that they were bound by a no-war pact. And the second verse concerns particular non-Muslims for whom Muslims are responsible and who are citizens of the Islamic state and owe allegiance to its legal government.

Worth pondering here is that in both these verses - the first verse which gives a choice and the second which gives a specified command - the instruction given to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is that he should decide cases of these non-Muslims, whenever he does so, in accordance with the injunctions revealed by Almighty Allah, that is, in accordance with his Shari'ah - and not in accordance with the wishes of these non-Muslims or the religion they follow.

To explain, it can be said that this injunction is related to events which have been described under the background of the revelation of these verses. Of these, one concerned the punishment for killing and blood money while the other was that of adultery and its punishment. In such punishments of crimes, the universal practice is to have a common law for the whole country. In this common law, no discrimination is made on the basis of classes or religions, for example, amputating the hand of the thief which would not apply to Muslims alone, but would be the punishment for every citizen of the country. Similarly, the punishments for killing and adultery will also be common to everyone. But, it does not make it necessary that personal and purely religious matters of non-Muslims should also be decided in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah.

Take an example from the conduct of the Holy Prophet g himself. Though he did declare liquor and swine unlawful for Muslims and prescribed a punishment for it, but he left non-Muslims free of any obligations in this matter. In addition to that, he never interfered in the personal law of non-Muslims pertaining to marriages and similar other matters. In fact, he accepted their marriages as valid.

With the rise of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula, the Magians of Hajar and the Jews and Christians of Najran and Wadi al-Qura became Dhimmis (protected non-Muslim citizens) of the Islamic state. That the Magians believed in marriage with even a mother and sister as lawful was known to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم . Similarly, marriage without ` Iddah (waiting period), or witnesses, was valid among Jews and Christians. But, he did not interfere in their personal matters and took their marriages as valid.

In short, it can be said that decisions about personal law and religious matters of non-Muslims who are citizens of a Muslim state shall be left to their own religion and thinking - and should there be the need to arrive at a judicial settlement of their cases, a judge from their own religion will be appointed to decide them.

However, in the event that they turn to a Muslim judge or ruler and show that the concerned parties would agree with the decision given, then, the Muslim judge or ruler will deliver his judgment but in accordance with his Shari` ah - because he is now the legally appointed arbitrator as approved by the parties concerned. In the noble verse وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ (Judge between them by what Allah has sent down and do not follow their desires - 49) appearing a little later, the command to decide in accordance with the Islamic Shari` ah given to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is based either on the matter being that of common law from which no section can be exempted, or rests on the basis that such people have themselves come to the Holy Prophet , have taken him as the arbitrator and wish that he himself should decide their case. Thus, it becomes obvious that his decision should be the one he believes in and which is also the mandate of his Shari' ah.

Now as we move on to other aspects of verse 41, we see that it be-gins with words of comfort for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم after which, he has been informed of the conspiracy hatched by the Jews, the description of which goes right upto its end. It reveals that the deputation coming to him was comprised of hypocrites who were secretly in league with the Jews and it is at their behest that they were going to see him. After that, there is a description of some evil traits of character the visiting group has against which Muslims have been warned. As an adjunct, it has been pointed out that these traits of character are rejectionist in nature, therefore, effort should be made to stay safe from them. Listed below are these four evil traits of character. Verse:42 Commentary 1. The first trait identified is: سَمَّاعُونَ لِلْكَذِبِ (They are listeners of the lie). It means that they are used to listening to and going by what is false. They are the kind of blind followers of unfaithful Jews who see to it that they are called men of learning who would go on following them despite noticing that they were openly negating the injunctions of the Torah, worse still, they would continue being satisfied with their fictional interpretations of it.

Following ` Ulama': The Norm for People

The way those making alterations and adulterations in the injunctions of Allah and His Messengers have been warned here, indicted similarly are those too who take such people as their leaders in religion and get used to listening to false and fabricated presentations from them. Offered here is an important rule of guidance for Muslims that, though the only way of following the obligations of religion open to un-lettered masses is to act in accordance with the ruling (Fatwa) and teaching (Ta` lim) of ` Ulama' (traditionally trained, morally groomed, professionally equipped men and women of learning and living and teaching in accordance with the inviolable truth of the Qur'an and Sunnah - a sense not carried by stray equivalents of scholars, the learned, religious leaders, divines, priests, et al. Tr.). But, this is a responsibility from which the masses too cannot escape. It is their duty to first find out what they are doing. Before they take a Fatwa or hope to act correctly in a religious matter, they must at least investigate into the antecedents of those they are going to follow. This is like a sick person looking for a good physician. He consults people who know about the best in the field, about their education, expertise, practice, professionalism, moral quality and human dealing. After this possible assessment, if one makes a mistake and falls into the trap of a quack or charlatan, a reasonable person would not blame him. But, anyone who did not take the trouble of investigating and landed into the lair of a false practitioner and messed up his life, then, he alone will be responsible for his suicide.

The same principle applies to the dissemination of knowledge about religious matters for common people. If one of them first did what was necessary, talked to people of knowledge, expertise and experience available in his area and was able to pick up an ` Alim to consult and follow, and acted according to his Fatwa, then, he would be considered excusable not only in the sight of people but also in the sight of Allah. In a hadith relating to a similar matter, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is reported to have said: فَاِنَ اِثمَہ علٰی مَن اَفتٰی which means, if in a situation like that, should the ` Alim or Mufti make a mistake, and a Muslim acts in accordance with this incorrect Fatwa, then, the sin for having acted in that manner does not fall on him, but it does on that ` Alim or Mufti - and that too would apply in a situation when that ` Alim or Mufti had made such a mistake knowingly, or had fallen short in deliberating on the problem to the best of his ability, or, may be, he was no ` Alim or Mufti to begin with, and had taken that responsible office through fraud or favour.

But, if a person takes someone as an ` Alim (a source of correct religious guidance which is worth following) on his own, without investigating, and does what he says - and the ` Alim so chosen is really not deserving of being followed - then, its curse will fall not only on that Mufti or ` Alim alone, but this person who chose him will also share its consequences equally because he gave the reins of his 'Iman (faith) into the hands of such a person without any investigation. These are the kind of people the Holy Qur'an calls ` the listeners of the lie,' people who keep tagged behind their (ill-chosen) religious leaders without taking the trouble of finding out the truth about their knowledge and integrity, conduct and deeds, trustworthiness and honesty. Unfortunately, they have got themselves into the habit of listening, accepting and being satisfied with fabricated and false narratives from them.

The Holy Qur'an is talking about the condition of Jews here but the message behind it is actually beamed at Muslims so that they can stay safe against something like that. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons of the downfall of Muslims in the contemporary world. They are quite smart in their mundane matters. When sick, they find the best physician. When stuck with a case, they will search out the best lawyer. When they make a house, they can dig out the top architect and engineer. But, when it comes to the matter of religion, they become so careless that they would take any man with a beard, a long shirt and a glib tongue as their religious leader, ` Alim, Mufti or guide. They would do that without bothering to find out whether or not this person was educated and trained formally in a reliable institution of higher religious learning; whether or not he has sat at the feet of experts in the field and culled the taste and temperament of the knowledge of Din; whether or not he has made intellectual contributions during his career; whether or not he has benefited from the company of truly pious elders and Men of Allah by imbibing from them the essential virtues of Taqwa (fear of Allah) and Taharah (physical and spiritual purity)?

The result of this carefree attitude is that a large section of people from among Muslims who do turn to religion unfortunately falls into the fishing nets of ignorant preachers and commercial pirs and becomes far-removed from the correct path of religion. For people like that, their knowledge of religion stands reduced to tales which leave their desiring selves untouched and which, then, gives them the delusion that they are following religion and doing a lot of worship. But, its reality is what has been described in the Holy Qur'an in the following words:

الَّذِينَ ضَلَّ سَعْيُهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُمْ يُحْسِنُونَ صُنْعًا

They are the people whose efforts and deeds have gone waste within the life of the world while they are thinking that they have done something good.

Concluding with a summary, we can say that the Holy Qur'an identifies an important principle by describing the hypocrites from among the Jews as ` the listeners of the lie.' The principle is that following ` Ulama is inevitable for people at large, but it is their responsibility that they should not follow anyone as their ` Alim or guide in religion without prior investigation as a result of which they may not become habituated to listening to what is false from ignorant people.

2. Describing the other evil trait of these hypocrites, it was said: سَمَّاعُونَ لِقَوْمٍ آخَرِ‌ينَ لَمْ يَأْتُوكَ (listeners for other people who did not come to you). It means that these people have obviously come to ask you about a religious matter. But, the truth of the matter is that their objective is neither religion nor some ruling about it. In fact, they are the spies of the kind of Jewish people who did not come to you by themselves be-cause of their arrogance. The deputationists, following the wishes of their senders, simply want to find out your view of the punishment of adultery and let their senders know about it who will themselves decide whether or not they would accept the verdict. In this, there is warning for Muslims that whoever seeks a Fatwa from an ` Alim of Din is bound by the condition that the intention of the seeker must be to find out the command of Allah and His Messenger and to follow it. Any effort to find out from one Mufti, or more than one, the objective solution of a religious problem, then, going about looking for a solution which suits one's desires is an open demonstration of following one's own desiring self - and Shaytan. This should be avoided.

3. Describing the third evil trait of these people, it has been said that they ` displace the words (of Allah) after their having been placed properly,' which means that, by doing so, they give the Word of Allah a meaning which is not intended and thus try to alter Divine injunctions. Included here is the possibility of making some changes or alterations in the very words of the Torah, as well as the eventuality that they keep the words as they are but make interpretations and alterations which are absurd in meaning. The Jews are used to doing it both ways.

In this, the warning given to Muslims is that Allah Almighty has Himself taken the responsibility of protecting the Holy Qur'an. As for an alteration in its words, nobod' - can dare to do that because it is simply not a matter of what is written in the already countless copies of the Qur'an, but also that of what lies secured in the memory banks of millions of human beings. Anyone who makes the slightest mistake of mispronouncing even a short vowel is caught instantly. As for an alteration in meaning, it can obviously be done - and doers have done it too. But, for its security, Almighty Allah has made the arrangement that there shall remain in this Ummah right through the Last Day of Qiyamah, a group of people who would be armed with the correct meaning and message of the Qur'an and Sunnah, and they would be enough to unmask the alterers, corrupters and distorters of their meanings.

Bribery and its evil consequences

4. The second verse (42) mentions another evil trait of these people by calling them: أَكَّالُونَ لِلسُّحْتِ translated here as ` eaters of the unlawful' making ` the unlawful' to stand for the word, ` suht' in the text. The liter-al meaning of Suht is to uproot or destroy something totally which is the sense in what the Qur'an says in: فَيُسْحِتَكُم بِعَذَابٍ , that is, (do not forge lies against Allah) lest He destroy you with a punishment - 20:61). But, at this place in the Qur'an, Suht denotes bribe. Sayyidna Ibrahim Nakha'ii, Hasan al-Basri, Mujahid, Qatadah and Dahhak and other leading authorities in Tafsir have explained it as bribe.

The reason for equating bribe with Suht (total destruction; also - unlawful earning, detestable enough to be shunned) is that it not only destroys its givers and takers alike but also goes on to uproot the whole country and community and destroy public peace and tranquility (by causing rise in illegal gratification and fall in avenues of honest earning). When bribery gains currency in a country or a department, law freezes and bribery stays hot. As for the law of a country, it is the only power which maintains peace and stability. When law and order stand suspended, nothing remains safe, life or property or honour, nothing. Therefore, by calling it Suht, the Shari' ah has declared it to be gravely Haram, forbidden and unlawful. Moreover, to block all possible doors of bribery, even the gifts given to officials or leaders or dignitaries of a country have also been classed as Suht or bribe in an authentic Hadith, and has been declared to be Haram. (Jassas)

The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has said in a hadith: Almighty Allah causes His curse to fall on the giver and taker of bribe and on him too who acts as a broker between them. (Jassas).

The Islamic Legal definition of Rishwah (meaning bribery) is the taking of compensation for something the taking of which would not be legally correct. For example, a person doing a job, the doing of which is included within his duty, and the fulfilling of which is mandatory on him, cannot take any compensation for it from any party. If taken, that is bribe. Functionaries of governments, officials or clerks, higher or lower, are all obligated to do their duties by virtue of being paid employees of the government. If they take something from the person whose case they are handling, that will be a bribe. The father and mother of a girl are responsible for the marriage of their daughter. They cannot take any ` compensation' for doing that. If they take any ` compensation' from the person who will have the hands of their daughter in marriage, that is a bribe. Sawm (fasting), Salah (prayers), Hajj (pilgrimage) and the Tilawah (recitation) of the Qur'an are ` Ibadah' (acts of worship) with which Muslims have been obligated. The taking of any ` compensation' from anyone is a bribe. However, the duty of the Teaching of Qur'an and the duty of leading Salah as Imam are exempt from this (as ruled by later Muslim jurists).

Then, a person who takes bribe and does someone's job as it should rightfully be done, he commits the sin of taking bribe and the money or material he has ` earned' is ` suht,' and unlawful for him. And should he do it as it should have not been done rightfully, then, this becomes another grave crime, that of wastage of what was right and that of changing an express command of Allah, in addition to the initial one. May Allah keep all Muslims safe from this curse. Verse:43 Commentary - - -