140. These and certain other verses which occur a little later on (see verses
113 ff.) deal with an important matter, related to an incident that took place
around the time they were revealed. The incident involved a person called Tu'mah
or Bashir ibn Ubayriq of the Banu Zafar tribe of the Ansar. This man stole an
Ansari's coat of mail. While the investigation was in progress, he put the coat
of mail in the house of a Jew. Its owner approached the Prophet (peace be on
him) and expressed his suspicion about Tu'mah. But Tu'mah, his kinsmen and many
of the Banu Zafar colluded to ascribe the guilt to the Jew. When the Jew concerned
was asked about the matter he pleaded that he was not guilty. Tu'mah's supporters,
on the other hand, waged a vigorous propaganda campaign to save Tu'mah's skin.
They argued that the wicked Jew, who had denied the Truth and disbelieved in
God and the Prophet (peace be on him), was absolutely untrustworthy, and his
statement ought to be rejected outright. The Prophet (peace be on him) was about
to decide the case against the Jew on formal grounds and to censure the plaintiff
for slandering Banu Ubayriq, but before he could do so, the whole matter was
laid bare by a revelation from God. (For the traditions cited here, see the
commentary of Ibn Kathir on this verse - Ed.)
It is obvious that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have committed no sin
if he had given judgement on the evidence before him. Judges are quite often
faced with such situations. False evidence is given in order to obtain wrong
verdicts. The time when this case came up for decision was a time of severe
conflict between Islam and unbelief. Had the Prophet (peace be on him) issued
a wrong judgement on the basis of the evidence before him, it would have provided
the opponents of Islam with an effective weapon against the Prophet (peace be
on him) as well as against the entire Islamic community, and even Islam itself.
They could have spread the word that the Prophet (peace be on him) and his followers
were not concerned about right and justice: it would have been claimed that
they were guilty of the same prejudice and chauvinism against which they had
themselves been preaching. It was specifically to prevent this situation that
God intervened in this particular case.
In this and the following (verses 105 ff.) the Muslims were strongly censured
for supporting criminals for no other reason than either family or tribal solidarity
and were told that they should not allow prejudice to interfere with the principle
of equal justice for all. Man's instinctive honesty revolts against the idea
of supporting one's own kin even when they are wrong, and denying others their
legitimate rights.