Verse:65 Commentary Mentioned for Muslims in the fourth (65) and fifth (66) verse, there is a law of war which stipulates the limit to which it was obligatory (fard) for them to stand resolutely against their adversary - and any retreat from which was a sin. In previous verses and events, it has been mentioned in detail that the unseen help of Allah Ta` ala is with Muslims for their matter is different, not like that of the peoples of the world at large. They, even if small in numbers, can overcome a lot more of their challengers as stated in the Holy Qur'an:

كَم مِّن فِئَةٍ قَلِيلَةٍ غَلَبَتْ فِئَةً كَثِيرَ‌ةً بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ

There are many smaller groups which overcome larger groups

with the will of Allah - 2:249).

Therefore, ten Muslims were declared to be equal to one hundred men in the first Jihad of Islam at the famous battle of Badr where the command given was:

إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُ‌ونَ صَابِرُ‌ونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ

If there are twenty among you, who are patient, they will over-come two hundred; and if there are one hundred among you, they will overcome one thousand of those who disbelieve - 8:65

The style of expression used here is that of a welcome news flash - that one hundred Muslims shall overcome one thousand disbelievers. But, the purpose is to order that it is not permissible for one hundred Muslims to run against one thousand disbelievers. The wisdom behind using the style of news is to make the hearts of Muslims become strong with this glad tidings telling them that Allah is promising their safety and victory. Had this order been announced in the imperative mood as a law, it would have naturally weighed heavy on temperaments.

The encounter at Badr was the very first battle Muslims had ever fought. At that time, they were in a terrible condition. The total number of Muslims itself was insignificant. Then, all of them had not gone to the war front. The hard fact was that only those who could get ready on the spot were the ones who became the 'army' of this war. Therefore, in this Jihad, one hundred Muslims were commanded to confront one thousand disbelievers in a style which carried the promise of Divine help and support. Verse:66 Commentary In the fourth verse (66), by abrogating this injunction for future, the second injunction given was:

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّـهُ عَنكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا ۚ فَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ صَابِرَ‌ةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِ‌ينَ ﴿66﴾

Now Allah has made it easy on you and He knew that there is weakness in you. So, if there are one hundred among you, who are patient, they will overcome two hundred - 8:66.

Here too, the purpose is to order that it is not permissible for one hundred Muslims to avoid fighting against two hundred disbelievers. It will be recalled that, in the first verse (65), the avoidance of one Muslim to fight against ten was declared to be forbidden. Here, in this verse (66), the avoidance of one against two was all that remained forbidden. And this is the last and final injunction which is operative forever and shall continue as such.

Here too, the command does not appear in the usual style of a command. Instead, the manner used is that of glad tidings which indicates that asking one Muslim to go out and stand firm against two disbelievers was, God forbid, no injustice or coercion. To be honest, Allah Ta` ala has Himself placed in a Muslim person - because of his 'Iman or Faith - a special power that one of them turns out to be equal to two.

But, at both places, the glad tidings about this support and victory has been made subject to the condition that these Muslims should be observers of patience and fortitude. It is obvious that standing steadfast while endangering one's dear life in fighting and killing on a battlefield is a feat which can be performed only by a person whose 'Iman is perfect - because, perfect 'Iman generates enthusiasm for surrendering one's life in the way of Allah and this enthusiasm multiplies his combat strength a lot more.

Towards the end of the verse, it was in the manner of a general principle that it was stated: وَاللَّـهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِ‌ينَ (And Allah is with the patient - 66). Included here, there are those who remain steadfast in the battlefield as well as those who keep following the usual injunctions of the Shari' ah strictly. The promise of Divine company stands good for all of them and in this state of His being with one and all of them lies the real secret of their victory - because, whoever has the good fortune of having the company of the Absolute Master simply cannot be moved away from the station of duty by anyone, not even by the whole world in unison. Verse:67 Commentary Commentary

The verses cited above relate to a particular event of the battle of Badr. Therefore, prior to an explanation, it is necessary to describe this event on the authority of sound and authentic narrations appearing in Hadith.

The scenario of the event is the battle of Badr. It was the first Jihad in Islam, and it had come up all of a sudden. Until then, the detail of injunctions pertaining to Jihad was not revealed. There were questions. If spoils come on hand during Jihad, what should be done with it? If enemy soldiers fall under your control, whether or not it is permissible to arrest them? And if they are arrested, what should be done with them?

The law of spoils operative in the religious codes of past prophets was that it was not lawful for Muslims to use them for their benefit. Instead, the injunction was that the entire spoils be collected and placed in some open field. According to a Divine practice, a fire would come from the skies and burn the whole thing. This was taken to be a sign that the particular Jihad was approved of. If the fire from the skies did not come to burn the spoils, it was taken to be a sign that there was some shortcoming in the Jihad effort because of which it was considered unacceptable with Allah.

According to narrations in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'I have been blessed with five things which were not bestowed on any prophet before me.' One of these was that spoils acquired from disbelievers were not lawful for anyone, but it was made lawful for the Muslim Ummah, the traditional recipient of mercy from Allah. That the property of spoils was particularly lawful for this Ummah already existed in the infinite knowledge of Allah Ta` ala, but no revelation attesting to its being lawful had been sent to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم until the event of the battle of Badr referred to above. And what happened in the battle of Badr was that Allah Ta` ala blessed Muslims with an extraordinary victory which was totally beyond their imagination. The enemy also left behind its belongings which fell into the hands of Muslims as spoils. Then they took seventy of their big chiefs as prisoners. But, the necessary clarification of whether or not the later two actions were permissible was yet to come through a Divine revelation.

Therefore, this hasty action taken by the noble Companions was censured. This censure and displeasure was demonstrated through a revelation in which Muslims were given a choice between two courses of action in the case of the prisoners of war. But, when giving this choice, it was also pointed out to them that, out of the two aspects of the case, one was desirable while the other was undesirable. Based on a narration from Sayyidna Ali al-Murtada ؓ ، it has been reported in Jami` Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Nasa'i and Sahih Ibn Hibban that on this occasion Sayyidna Jibra'il al-Amin (علیہ السلام) came to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and communicated to him the command that he should give his Companions ؓ a choice between two courses of action: (1) That they either kill these prisoners and destroy the image of enemy power for ever; (2) or, that they are released against some payment of fidyah (ransom). However, should this second option be taken, it has to be borne in mind that it stands Divinely ordained that, in return for this next year, the number of Muslims who will fall as martyrs will match the number of prisoners who will be released today on payment of ransom. Though, the two courses of action did have the element of choice and the Companions ؓ did have the option of going by any one of the two, but, in the second option where mention was made of the eventuality of the martyrdom of seventy Muslims, there did exist a delicate indication towards the undesirability of the second option in the sight of Allah Ta` ala - because, had it been desirable, the killing of seventy Muslims would have not been binding as a result.

When these two alternatives were presented before the Companions ؓ as a matter of choice for them, some of them thought if these people were released against payment of ransom, it was quite possible that they all, or some of them, may become Muslims at some later stage which would, then, be the real gain, and the very objective of Jihad itself. They also thought that Muslims were poor at that time and should they make some financial gain through ransom for seventy men, that would not only help remove their hardship but also contribute towards their preparations for Jihad in future. As for the martyrdom of seventy Muslims, it was a standing blessing and good fortune for Muslims themselves. Why should they worry about something so welcome, they thought. It was in view of these thoughts that Sayyidna Abu Bakr ؓ and most of the Companions ؓ tilted towards the option of releasing the prisoners against ransom. Only Sayyidna ` Umar, Sayyidna Sa'd ibn Mu` adh and some other Companions ؓ dif-fered with this opinion and recommended the option of killing them all on the ground that it was a good chance as all Quraysh chiefs, who sponsor and supply the entire striking force arrayed against Muslims, had fallen into their hands at one given time. That they would embrace Islam in the near future was a figment of their imagination. However, what was more likely to happen was that these people, once they return, will become the cause of enhanced hostility against Muslims, much too pronounced than ever before.

As for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he had come to grace this mortal world as the universal messenger of mercy - and was himself mercy personified - he looked at the two opinions from the Sahabah and accepted the one which provided mercy and ease for prisoners - that they be released against ransom. Addressing Sayyidna Abu Bakr ؓ and Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ he said: لو اتفقتما ما خالفتکما (Had you two agreed upon any one opinion, I would have not acted against the opinion given by you two). (Mazhari) Faced with a difference of opinion at that time, it was but the dictate of his inherent mercy and affection he had for the creation of Allah that the course of ease and convenience was taken to in their case. So, that was what was done. And the outcome was that next year, at the time of the battle of 'Ubud, the event of the martyrdom of seventy Muslims came to pass as Divinely indicated.

In the words: تُرِ‌يدُونَ عَرَ‌ضَ الدُّنْيَا (You want things of this world - 67), the address is to the noble Companions ؓ who had suggested release for ransom. This verse tells them that they had given improper advice to the Rasul of Allah because it did not match with the august station of any prophet that he would not, once he overpowers the enemies, go on to demolish their power and its image, instead, would opt for granting relief to a wicked and conspiratorial enemy only to commit Muslims to everlasting trouble.

The words used in this verse are: حَتَّىٰ يُثْخِنَ فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ (until he has had a thorough bloodshed in the land - 67). Lexically, the word: اِثخان (ithkhan) means to demolish someone's might and power exhaustively and conclusively. The words: فِی الاَرض (fi'l-ard : in the land) have been made to follow in order to intensify this very sense of total termination.

As for the Sahabah who had recommended release against ransom, part of their view was, no doubt, purely religious - they hoped that, once free, these people may embrace Islam. But, alongwith it, part of it was motivated by personal interest as well - that they will have spoils to bring back - although, until that time, there was no decisive textual authority which proved spoils as permissible property for Muslims. Therefore, in view of the high standards being set for the society of men and women under the education, training and guidance of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم - standards which aimed to take them to ranks even higher than angels - the slightest turn of thought towards material acquisitions was considered a kind of disobedience. Thus, it goes without saying that the sum total of what is a potpourri of deeds which are both permissible and impermissible will, after all, be called impermissible. Therefore, such conduct from the Sahabah met with displeasure and it was said: تُرِ‌يدُونَ عَرَ‌ضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللَّـهُ يُرِ‌يدُ الْآخِرَ‌ةَ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ: 'You want things of this world while Allah wants the Hereafter (for you) - 67,' that is, Allah wants you to seek the Hereafter. Mentioned here as reprimand was a particular act of theirs which was the cause of displeasure. The other cause, that of the hope of released prisoners becoming Muslims, was not mentioned here. This indicates that a special group like the group of righteous, sincere and noble Sahabah would accommodate such mixed up intention as would combine some faith and some personal interest was something not acceptable even in that degree. Worth noticing here is the fact that the admonition and warning in this verse are being addressed to the noble Sahabah. Though, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ، by accepting their opinion, had gone along with them in a certain way, but, this act of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was purely a demonstration of his being universally merciful when he, subsequent to a difference of opinion among the Sahabah, had gone by a course of action which promised grace and convenience for the prisoners.

At the end of the verse, by saying: وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (And Allah is Mighty, Wise - 67), it was pointed out that Allah Ta` ala, being the source of all might and wisdom, would have - only if they had not acted in a hurry - provided for them wealth and properties as well in their future victories through His infinite grace. Verse:68 Commentary The second verse (68) is also a supplement to this admonition where it has been said that had it not been for a Divine writ already established, the course of action which you opted for - that of releasing the prisoners against ransom - would have brought upon you some grave punishment.

What is this writ and what does it mean? According to a narration from Sayyidna Abu Hurairah ؓ reported in Tirmidhi, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Spoils were not lawful for any community before you. When, on the occasion of Badr, Muslims went after collecting spoils - though, spoils were not made lawful for them until that time - this verse was revealed. It emphasized that this initiative taken by Muslims, before the injunction making spoils lawful for them was revealed, was a sin which deserved instant punishment. But, since the writ of Allah that spoils shall be made lawful for this community was already there in the Preserved Tablet, therefore, punishment was not sent over Muslims for this misconduct. (Mazhari)

It appears in Hadith narrations that, subsequent to the revelation of this verse, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: The Divine punishment was almost about to descend when Allah, in His grace, held it back and had this punishment come, no one except ` Umar ibn al-Khattab and Sa'd ibn Mu` adh ؓ would have remained safe from it. This tells us that the cause of Divine admonition was the act of releasing prisoners against ransom - and, in the light of the narration from Tirmidhi mentioned earlier, the reason seems to be the act of collecting spoils. But, there appears to be no contradiction between the two. Taking ransom from prisoners is also nothing but a part of spoils. Verse:69 Commentary Ruling 1: In the verse under discussion, admonition came upon releasing prisoners against ransom or collecting spoils, warning of Divine punishment was given, then came forgiveness. But, what remained still not clear was the future course Muslims would be required to take in such matters. Therefore, in the next verse (69), the matter relating to spoils was made all too clear by saying: فَكُلُوا مِمَّا غَنِمْتُمْ (So, eat of the spoils you have got), that is, it has been made lawful for you in the future. But, even now, there remains a doubt to the effect that the injunction making spoils lawful had come at the present stage, however, spoils which had been collected in error before the coming of this injunction may contain some element of undesirability in it. Therefore, by saying: حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا (lawful and pure - 69) soon after it, even this doubt was removed. It means: Though, taking the initiative in collecting spoils, before the revelation of Divine guideline, was not correct - but now that the injunction making spoils lawful has been revealed, all that has been collected earlier is also lawful without any shade of repugnance or reprehensibility (karahah) in it.

Ruling 2: At this point, worth notice and retention is a principle of Islamic jurisprudence: When some impermissible initiative is regularized through a standing verse, no effect of the previous initiative remains operative therein. The property becomes lawful and pure - as it happened here. But, there is a corresponding instance relevant to what has been stated above. Take a case in which there was an injunction already revealed, but its revelation did not seem to affect the initiators of an action, based on which they went on to contravene it. It was later on that they found out that the particular deed of theirs was contrary to such and such injunction of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Then, in such a situation, after the coming of the injunction, that property does not remain lawful - even though the previous error is forgiven. (Nuru 'l-Anwar, Mulla Jiwan) However, in the present verse, spoils have, no doubt, been declared to be lawful and pure, but the restriction imposed at the end of the verse was: وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ‌ رَّ‌حِيمٌ (and fear Allah. Surely, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful - 69). The hint given here is that, though spoils have been made lawful, but that too has been made lawful under a particular law. Taking against that law or taking more than due shall not still be permissible.

There were two matters in question here: (1) Spoils (2) Release of prisoners against ransom. The first problem was resolved clearly by the present verse, but the other matter was yet to be cleared. Regarding this, the following verse of Surah Muhammad was revealed:

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا فَضَرْ‌بَ الرِّ‌قَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْ‌بُ أَوْزَارَ‌هَا

So, when you confront those who disbelieve at war, then keep beheading them until when you have had a thorough blood-shed to break their power, then shackle them tight. After that, either free them as favour without any return or release them against ransom - until the war lays down its arms - 47:4)

Sayyidna ` Abdullah ibn ` Abbas ؓ says: Divine admonition came upon releasing prisoners against ransom in the battle of Badr. This was the first Jihad of Islam. That was a time when the might and power of disbelievers was yet to break apart. It was by chance that they had run into trouble. Finally, when Islam and Muslims went on to achieve total ascendency, Allah Ta` ala abrogated the earlier injunction and revealed the verse of the Surah Muhammad quoted above in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and Muslims have been given four options about prisoners. These are:

ان شاء واقتلوھم وان شاء وا استعبدوھم وان شاء وا افادوھم وان شاء وا اعتقوھم۔

If they wish, they can kill them all; or if they wish, they can put them in bondage; or if they wish, they can release them against ransom; or if they wish, they can (just) free them (without taking any ransom). (Mazhari)

There is a consensus of the entire Muslim Ummah on the first two of the four options mentioned above that the Amir of Muslims has the dual right of killing the prisoners and holding them in bondage, but there is a difference of opinion among Muslim jurists about setting them free without compensation or releasing them against it.

The position taken by Imam Malik, Shafi` i, Ahmad. ibn Hanbal, Thawri, Ishaq, and Hasan al-Basri and 'Ata' from among the Tabi` in, is that both these forms are permissible for the Amir of Muslims - that he may release the prisoners against compensation, or set them free without compensation, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.

But Imam Abu- Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Awza` i, and Qatadah, Dahhak, Suddiyy and Ibn Jurayj say that setting them free is just not permissible without compensation. Even releasing them against ransom is not permissible in the well-known creed of Imam Abu Hanifah. However, it appears in a report of al-Siyar al-Kabir that, should Muslims be in need of financial support, they can release prisoners against ransom. However, releasing them in exchange for Muslim prisoners is permissible with Imam Abu Hanifah and the two Jurists, Imams Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. (As evident from the two reports from them - Mazhari).

Those who have permitted release against ransom or without ransom, they - as said by Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ - regard the verse of Surah Muhammad to be the abrogator (nasikh) of the verse of Surah Al-Anfal and take the later as abrogated (mansukh). According to Hanafi jurists, what stands abrogated (mansukh) is the verse of Surah Muhammad, while the verses of Surah Al-Anfal: فَشَرِّ‌دْ بِهِم مَّنْ خَلْفَهُمْ (make them an example, for those behind them -57) and Surah Al-Taubah: فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِ‌كِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ (kill the Mushriks wherever you find them -9:5) are its abrogator (nasikh). Therefore, according to them, it is not permissible to release the prisoners, whether against ransom or without it. (Mazhari)

But, a careful deliberation into the respective words of the verses of Su-rah Al-Anfal and Surah Muhammad leaves us with the impression that none of these two can be called the abrogator or the abrogated. In fact, they are two injunctions for two different situations.

It can be seen that the pivotal injunction of breaking the power of disbelievers (اَثخان فی العرض) has been taken up in the verse of Surah Al-Anfal, then, the option of releasing prisoners without compensation or against it (in the form of: من وفداء) has been given in Surah Muhammad too, but the main objective has already been stated in the former - that of' ithkhan fi 'l-ard'. Thus, it means that once the power facade of the disbelievers has been broken through a thorough blood-shed, Muslims have the option of releasing prisoners against ransom, or setting them free without any ransom.

The report of al-Siyar al-Kabir from Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) could also be intended to establish that both kinds of injunctions can be given keeping in view the conditions and needs Muslims are faced with. 1.

1. Some more detail about the war-prisoners will appear in the commentary of Surah Muhammad insha-allah. (Editor)