1. For further details, see: Tafhim al-Qur'an, vol. 5, Surah al-Hadid 57: nn.1-2. The aim of this introductory sentence, before making an appraisal of the expulsion of the Bānu al-Naḍīr, is to prepare people's minds to understand the truth and that the fate that this powerful tribe met was not due to the power of the Muslims but rather to the manifestation of the power of God.

2. The Qur'anic expressions are: li awwali'l-ḥashr. Literally hashr means the gathering of scattered people or the expulsion of scattered people. The question here is: what is the meaning of the first hashr? For the Qur'anic expression used here may mean either the first or the second hashr. The scholars of the Qur'an disagree on the meaning of the word as used in this verse. A group of them stipulated that it means the expulsion of the Banu al-Naḍīr from Madinah which constituted their first hashr. They faced their second hashr during the reign of the Caliph 'Umar when the Jews and Christians were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula while the final hashr will take place on the Day of Resurrection. However, in the opinion of a second group of Qur'ānic scholars, this refers to the gathering of the Muslim army to fight the Banu al-Naḍir. For them, the first hashr refers to the fact that, as soon as the Muslims had assembled and before any fighting broke or blood spilled, they offered of their own accord to be banished from Madīnah by the manifestation of God's power. In other words, the expression has been used here to mean "at the very first assault". Shāh Waliullah and Shāh 'Abd al-Qadir (two distinguished Qur'ānic scholars of the Indian subcontinent) have explained the expression as meaning: "at the first mustering". We concur with this view.

3. Let one point be clarified at the outset regarding the expulsion of the Banu al-Naḍīr so that there is no confusion apropos this issue. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had already concluded a formal written agreement with the Jews. What called for action against them was that, apart from numerous instances of breaching this agreement, they had brazenly committed something which amounted to a violation of their agreement. They had hatched a conspiracy to assassinate the head of the Islamic state, the chief of the other party of the agreement. They were exposed so openly that they could not even deny their conspiracy. Consequently, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) served them a ten-day notice to leave Madīnah, otherwise action, in the form of war, would be taken against them. The Prophet's notice to them was in accordance with this Qur'anic directive: "And if you fear treachery from any people (with whom you have a covenant) then publicly throw their covenant at them" (Surah al-Anfāl, 8: 58). This is why God ascribes the expulsion of the Banu al-Naḍīr to Himself for this action was perfectly in consonance with the Divine Law. In other words, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Muslims did not expel them; it was God Who sent them into exile. Another reason which explains that it was a Divine action is mentioned in the verses which follow.

4. For its better appreciation, it should be borne in mind that the Banu al-Naḍīr had been settled there for centuries; they lived outside Madinah, to the exclusion of everyone else apart from their own tribe. They had a fortress that housed their population and even their houses were well fortified in line with the tribal way of life as they were built in fraught-ridden tribal areas. Moreover, they were not less in number

than the Muslims of the day and had many hypocrites who supported them in Madinah itself. Therefore, the Muslims did not expect at all that they would panick just because of the siege and freely leave without putting up any resistance. Likewise, the Banu al-Naḍīr also could not imagine there was any power on earth that would make them leave their homes within six days. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Banu Qaynuqā' had been expelled before them and their false pride and valour proved to be of no avail. However, the Banu Qaynuqā' were settled in a particular locality inside Madīnah and did not have any separate fortified settlement. The Banu al-Naḍīr thought, therefore, they would withstand the siege laid by the Muslims successfully. In view of their secure town and strong fortress, it was beyond their imagination that anyone could ever expel them. This is why, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) served them a notice to leave Madīnah within ten days, they boldly dismissed the notice, saying: "We are not going to quit: you may do whatever you please."

The question one faces here is: on what basis did Allah say: "They were thinking that their fortresses would defend them from God"? Did the Banu al-Naḍir realise that they were pitted against Allah, not against Muḥammad ibn 'Abdullah, while still thinking that their fortresses will save them from Allah? This is a question which would confound any person who is not familiar with the Jewish psyche and the centuries-old traditions of the Jews. One cannot, and does not expect any ordinary person to take on God deliberately and yet still entertain the false hope that his forts and weapons would save him from God. Therefore, the uninitiated readers might interpret the above Qur'anic comment in the sense that, due to their strong forts, the Banu al-Naḍir believed that they would be able to defend themselves against the attack of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). However, in reality they were fighting against God and, hence, their forts could not protect them from Him. The Jews are such an odd people in the world that they knowingly confronted God and deliberately killed His messengers. They even took pride in doing so and declared arrogantly that they had killed the messengers of God. There is a tradition which is fairly common among them that their great Patriarch, the Prophet Jacob, wrestled with God throughout the night and God could not defeat him, and they continued fighting until daybreak. In the morning, God asked Jacob to let Him go but Jacob refused to let Him go until He blessed him (Genesis 32: 25-29). God asked him his name and he answered 'Jacob,' God said that his name is no longer Jacob but Israel, "because you strove with God and with men, and prevailed."

Israel is literally defined as "He who striveth with God." Likewise, in A Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, Christian scholars define Israel as a "wrestler with God". Then in Hosea (OT) Prophet Jacob (peace and blessings be upon him) has been praised thus: by the strength of his age, he had a wrestling with God; he also wrestled with angels and prevailed (ch. 12: 3-4).

Now, obviously, the people of Israel are the children of the same Prophet Israel who, according to their faith, had striven with God and wrestled with Him. For them, it is not at all difficult to stand firm and fight even with God. On this very basis, and according to their own affirmation, they even killed the prophets of God. And under the same false pride, they claimed to have put Prophet Jesus on the cross and bragged "innä qatalnā'l-Masīḥa ‘Īsā ibne Maryama rasula'l-Lahi" [we have killed Jesus Christ, son of Maryam, the Messenger of God]. Thus, it was not something new for them to wage a war against the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), realising well that he was a messenger of God. At least, the Jewish rabbis and learned men, if not also their common people, recognised well the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a Messenger of God. There are several evidences in the Qur'an itself. (For detail, see: Surahs al-Baqarah, 2: nn 79-95; al-Nisa', 4: nn. 190-191 and al-Ṣāffāt, 37: nn. 70-73).

5. The verse reads: "Then God came upon them from whence they did not expect." Obviously this does not mean that God was previously elsewhere and then launched an attack on them from a specific location. What is said here is a metaphorical expression which means that the Banu al-Naḍīr had thought that they will be able to use their fortress to defend themselves against any attack and God attacked them from an unexpected direction. They capitulated because they were left with no willpower to fight and, internally, their morale completely failed them. As a result, neither their arms nor their strong fortress could be of any help to them.

6. They faced destruction on two fronts: the Muslims besieged them from outside and demolished their fortifications and, inside, they had erected barriers made of rocks and logs in order to stall the march of the Muslim army. They had thus piled up debris and, in order to do so, they had to demolish their homes with their own hands. When they realised that they had to leave the place, they destroyed what remained of their own homes which they had so fondly built and decorated with their own hands in order to render them useless for the Muslims. Later on, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had this treaty with them to spare their lives and allow them to take with them all they could carry except for weapons and armours, they took out doors, windows and even pegs and other fixtures. Some carried even the beams of their wooden roofs on their camels and left.

7. This incident includes a number of lessons which are referred to eloquently in this important verse. These Jews were the followers of earlier prophets who believed in God, His Book, the prophets of the past and the Day of Judgement. In a nutshell, they belonged to a nation that had submitted to God. However, because they had abandoned their faith and morals and were swayed by their base desires and worldly interests, which prompted them to oppose the truth and not abide by their treaties and agreements, they were deprived of Allah's mercy. Allah did not have any personal grudge against them. First of all, the Muslims are asked to draw a lesson from the Jews' terrible end. Unlike the belief of the Jews about themselves, they should not regard themselves as God's chosen children nor harbour the delusion that their inclusion among the followers of the community of God's final Messenger guarantees them God's help and support which, therefore, dispenses them from following the Islamic code of faith and morals. All human beings are also asked to learn a lesson from this event in that those who deliberately oppose the truth and instead rely on their wealth, power, means and resources, wrongly think that these will save them from God's punishment. The Madīnan Jews were not unaware of the truth that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) did not come to establish the supremacy of any particular community or tribe; rather his mission was addressed to all mankind and that all human beings, irrespective of their race or nationality, could join the Prophet's ummah (community) by accepting his call. They were witnesses that Bilal of Abyssinia, Șuhayb of Byzantium and Salman of Persia enjoyed the same position and status in the Muslim community as the members of the Prophet's own household. Hence, the Jews were no longer under any fear that the Quraysh, the Aws and the Khazraj would gain an upper hand over them. They knew well that the Prophet's mission was identical with the message of their own prophets for he did not claim that he had come with a new religion, not brought by anyone before him, nor did he ask them to abandon their religion altogether and accept his religion instead. Rather, his message was that the religion he brought was the same as that was preached by all the prophets of God since the beginning of creation. Thus they were able to confirm the Prophet's mission in the light of their own holy Book, the Torah. This should have convinced them that Islam is the original faith and that its principles do not differ from those of other prophets. Likewise, the Qur'an asked them to believe in teachings that confirm the teachings they were granted and not to deny it. For this reason, it was said to them, "And believe in the Book which I have revealed and which confirms the Scripture you already have, and be not foremost among its deniers" (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 41). Moreover, they were witnesses to the Prophet's excellent character and conduct and the transformation he made in people's lives after they had accepted his message. The Anṣār had been their closest neighbours for centuries; they knew well how they were in the pre-Islamic era and how they improved in the post-Islamic phase. Thus, they were fully aware of the call to Islam, its preacher and the results emanating from accepting this call. Yet, they knowingly and wilfully fought against the truth, which they could not deny, because of their ethnic pride and also in order to protect their material interests. Even after such deliberate rejection of the truth, they still expected their fortress to save them from Divine Punishment. It is evident from history that no armor or shield can protect one from God's might.

8. The meaning of worldly punishment is their extermination from the face of the earth. Had they fought, instead of surrendering to save their lives and agreeing to maintain peace, they would have been completely annihilated; their males would have been enslaved and their womenfolk and children would have been taken as prisoners and there would have been no one to ransom them.

9. The reference is to the felling or burning down of several palm trees by the Muslims around the settlement of the Banu al-Nadir as part of the process of the siege. They destroyed a number of trees in order to facilitate the siege but did not touch others which did not obstruct the movement of their troops. This prompted the Madīnan hypocrites, the Banu Qurayzah and the Banu al-Naḍīr to protest loudly that, while the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibits corruption on earth, his followers are guilty of destroying green, fruit-laden trees, and if this was not spreading corruption (fasad) on earth, then what is it? It was in this context that Allah revealed the above verse stating: "The palm trees that you cut down or those that you left standing on their roots, it was by God's permission that you did so." From this, one can infer the legal ruling that a destructive act necessitated by a war strategy is not tantamount to corruption on earth. Rather, corruption on earth consists of war mania and destroying agricultural fields, cattle, orchards, buildings and everything in the enemy territory without any genuine reason. The general Islamic norm of war is summed up in what Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) communicated to the Muslim army which was on its way to Syria, when he directed them not to cut down any fruit-bearing tree or destroy crops or demolish towns. It is perfectly clear from the Qur'ānic teachings that only the wicked resort to such misdeeds and the Qur'an condemns those guilty of it: "Whenever he attains authority, he goes about the earth spreading mischief and laying to waste crops and human life" (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 205). However, as a war strategy, when a destructive action is inevitable, one may resort to it as an exceptional case. While explaining the above verse, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud clarified: "The Muslims had cut down only those trees of the Banu al-Naḍīr which happened to be in the battle range" (Tafsir al-Nishāpūrī). Some Muslim jurists overlooked this aspect and were of the opinion that the cutting down of the Banu al-Naḍīr's trees was an exceptional case and cannot be generalised, in the sense that, whenever the battle plan necessitates doing so, trees belonging to the enemy can be felled down or burnt. Imam al-Awza 'i, al-Layth and Abū Thawr agreed with this opinion. However, the consensus opinion of jurists is that such an action is lawful as part of a war strategy but it is not condoned if it is carried out just for the sake of causing destruction.

One may say that the above Qur'anic verses were revealed to satisfy the Muslims. However, this is not a sufficient argument for those who do not believe that the Qur'an is the word of God. For them, the assertion that these actions were sanctioned by God does not mean anything. The Qur'ānic verse was no doubt sent down in order to set the minds of the Muslims at peace and did not seek to satisfy the unbelievers. Due to the objection raised by the Jews and hypocrites, the Muslims, too, doubted whether they were guilty of the crime of corruption. God therefore reassured them by telling them that felling down some trees and letting others stand on their roots, as part of the siege, was in accordance with the Divine Law.

The reports narrated by Ḥadith scholars differ regarding whether it was the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who commanded the felling and burning down of these trees or the Muslims had done so of their own accord and later sought the Prophet's ruling. According to 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had himself ordered this (al- Bukhārī, Tafsir Surah al-Ḥashr 59, 2; Muslim, Kitāb al-jihād, 29 and 30; Ibn Jarir al-Tabarī 27, 42; and Musnad of Imām Ahmad, 2, 8, 52, 80,123 and 140). Yazid ibn Rūmān's report also bears out the above (Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabarī). By contrast, Mujāhid and Qatadah report that the Muslims themselves had cut down these trees. Later, they disputed among themselves whether they should have done so or not, some arguing it was a valid act while others doubting that it was so. Eventually, God sent down the above verse which sanctioned their actions (Ibn Jarīr). The above point is corroborated by 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbās' report that the Muslims had this nagging doubt because some of them had cut down the trees while others had not. They sought the Prophet's ruling regarding those amongst them who were entitled to reward and those who will be subjected to punishment (al-Nasa'ī). The jurists who prefer the former stance reason that, since it was the Prophet's decision, it was endorsed later by an explicit Divine Revelation. It indicates that matters about which there was no clear Divine Guidance, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) exercised his own judgement as ijtihād. However, the jurists who are inclined to the latter stance maintain that the two groups of Muslims had formed two divergent opinions and both were upheld by God. So if scholars disagree while sincerely acting on the basis of their reasoning, their divergent opinions will be equally valid according to the Divine Law, notwithstanding their disagreement.

10. The purpose of the verse is to emphasise that both these acts - cutting down some trees and letting others stand were meant to humiliate the evildoers. In the first instance, they were humiliated when the trees, which they themselves had planted and were in their possession for a long time, were cut down and they could do nothing about it except helplessly to watch it happen. Any ordinary farmer or orchard owner cannot bear to see someone else interfere with his property. If someone is bent on destroying his farm or orchard and he is unable to restrain him, this would betray his utter humiliation and weakness. In the second instance, they also suffered humiliation because, upon leaving Madīnah, they could see that their green orchards, which they had owned until then, were now in the hands of the Muslims. If they had the power to do it, they would have laid all those orchards to waste so that not a single tree would pass to the Muslims. But the fact was that they were fleeing their home town in utter helplessness. They could do no more than watch, in a state of utter grief and desperation, their properties slip out of their hands.

11. Here, mention is made of the lands and properties that came to the possession of the Islamic state after the exile of the Banu al-Naḍir. From the present verse onwards up to the verse 10, God lays down a set of directives regarding the management of these properties. It was the first time that a territory was acquired by the Islamic state. Since other areas were to be conquered later, the Qur'an laid down a law for such lands at the beginning of their conquest. It is worth mentioning that God has used these words: "Whatever God has taken away from them and bestowed on His Messenger." These words automatically suggest that the earth and whatever is on it does not belong to those who rebel against God. The true position of the properties whose ownership passed on to the Muslims from the unbelievers, as a result of a lawful and just war, is that God, the true Owner of these properties, withdrew them from His disobedient and rebellious servants and granted or restored them to His loyal and faithful servants. This is why, in Islamic parlance, such properties have been described as "fay"" (restored properties).

12. The Muslims were not able to take possession of these properties due to their army's prowess but because of the overall strength that God had bestowed on His Messenger and his community and the system he established amongst them. Therefore, the position of these properties was quite different from that of the spoils of war and, hence, they could not be distributed among the soldiers. It is for this reason that Islamic law distinguishes between ghanimah (spoils) and fay' (restored properties). The latter consists of those transferable properties which are seized from the enemy during the course of actual fighting.

All other transferable and non-transferable goods of the enemy are excluded from the definition of spoils and are treated as fay'. The Qur'anic law of distributing the spoils of wars is as follows: "Know that one-fifth of the spoils that you obtain belongs to God and to the Messenger and to the near kin, to the orphans and the needy, and the wayfarer" (Surah al-Anfal 8:41). Four out of five equal shares of the spoils are distributed among the warriors while the fifth share is deposited in the public treasury to be spent on those identified in the verse. By contrast, fay' is not distributed among the army and all of it is utilised for purposes which are described later. The distinction between the two is brought out thus: "Whatever God has taken away from them and bestowed (as spoils) on His Messenger for which you spurred neither horses nor camels" (al-Hashr, 59: 6). Everything that is gained through war is a spoil (ghanīmah) while anything that is gained without war is fay'.

Muslim jurists have explained further the distinction, referred to briefly in the above verse, between spoils (ghanīmah) and restored properties (fay'). The former refers to transferable goods which the Muslim army gets from the enemy in a war operation. Everything else, such as lands, houses and other transferable and non-transferable goods of the enemy, do not fall into the category of spoils of war (ghanimah). This interpretation is based on 'Umar's letter to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqāṣ after the conquest of Iraq in which he wrote: "All the goods which the army has captured should be distributed among those Muslims who took an active part in the war. Let the owners of lands and canals keep ownership of these so that their income is used for supporting the Muslims" (Abü Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, p. 24; Abū 'Ubayd, Kitāb al- Amwal, p. 59 and Yaḥyā ibn Adam, Kitāb al-Kharāj, pp. 27-28 and 48). In light of the above, al-Hasan al-Baṣrī maintained that: "Whatever is gained from the enemy camp belongs to the warriors who defeated the enemy whereas all the land is for the Muslims” (Yaḥyā ibn Ādam, Kitāb al-Kharāj, p. 27). Abū Yūsuf added: "Whatever the Muslims gain from the army of the enemy as well as all their goods, weapons and cattle, which they bring to the war camp, constitute spoils of war (ghanimah). Four-fifths of this is distributed among the army while one- fifth is set aside” (Kitāb al-Kharāj, p. 18). Yaḥyā ibn Ādam subscribes to the same view, as is evident from his Kitāb al-Kharāj (p. 27). Another major distinction between booty (ghanimah) and fay' is summed up as follows:

After the distribution of the spoils of war following the battle of Nahāwand, the territory became part of the Islamic state. It was then that al-Sa'ib ibn al-Aqra' laid hands on two bags of jewels which were found in a fort. He was unsure whether it should be considered as booty (ghanimah) which had to be distributed among the Muslim army, or as fay' which should be deposited in the public treasury. Eventually, he went to Madinah and presented the case before Umar who decided that the jewels be sold and the money be deposited in the public treasury. Thus, one learns that booty only refers to such transferable goods which an army gains in a battle. After citing the above instance, Abū 'Ubayd remarked: "The spoils of war refer to the goods which are gained from the enemy by force in a battle. However, when the battle is over and that territory becomes part of the land of Islam, anything obtained consequently qualifies as fay' which should be reserved for the benefit of all the citizens of the land of Islam. The law of khums does not apply to it" (Kitāb al-Amwāl, p. 254).

After defining booty thus, all the goods and land transferred from the unbelievers to the Muslims may be classified under two major categories: (1) countries conquered by force ('anwah); and (2) countries that fall under the Muslims as a result of a peace treaty, even if the Muslim military has forced them to make peace with the Muslims. So, all the goods which fall to the Muslims belong to this category, apart from the goods gained by force, i.e. in the battle. Muslim jurists have differed regarding the goods that belong to the former category, especially regarding their legal ruling; rather, these are covered by verse 6 of Surah al-Hashr. As for the goods that belong to the other category, these are undoubtedly fay' and the Qur'an specifies this clearly. We will discuss further below the legal ruling of the former.

13. The preceding verse explained the reason why these goods were not distributed among the invading army in the same way spoils of war are. The legal ruling concerning them is different from the legal ruling of the spoils of war. As such, this verse clarifies who is entitled to these goods and properties.

The first and foremost share of it is for God and His Messenger. Mälik ibn Aws ibn al-Ḥadathān reported on the authority of 'Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to take from it for himself and his family for the maintenance of a year and spend the rest on procuring weapons for jihād and mounts for travel (al- Bukhārī, Muslim, Musnad of Imām Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa'ī, etc). After the Prophet's death, this share was deposited in the public treasury and spent on the mission assigned by God to His Messenger. Imam al-Shafi'i was of the opinion that the share specified for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is assigned to the caliph who succeeds him for he was entitled to that share on account of being a head of state not on account of being a messenger. However, the opinion of the majority of Shafi ¶ jurists is that this share is for the collective religious use of the Muslims or for its use in other interests of theirs and no particular individual is entitled to it.

The second share is apportioned to the household of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) which means the Banū Hāshim and the Banu al-Muttalib. Their share was laid down in order to enable the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to meet his own expenses and that of those of his immediate family as well as to fulfil his obligation towards his needy relatives whom he wanted to help. After the Prophet's death, however, the share earmarked for his household ceased to be a separate and independent share and, instead, became the right of the orphans, wayfarers and needy people as well as the needy

ones among the Banū Hāshim and the Banu al-Muttalib who became responsible for the public treasury. It was, however, recognized that the claim of the needy among the Prophet's kinsfolk had a priority over that of the others, for they are not entitled to receive Zakāt.

According to 'Abdullāh ibn 'Abbās, during the reigns of the Caliph Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman, the first two shares of fay' were abandoned and only the three shares of the orphans, needy and wayfarers were retained. 'Alī (may Allah be please with him) also followed the same practice during his reign. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq narrated Imam al-Baqir's statement that, although 'Ali was of the opinion that a share should be earmarked for the Prophet's household, he did not deviate from the practice of Abu Bakr and 'Umar regading this issue. Al-Hasan ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah pointed out that, after the Prophet's death, there was a difference of opinion about the shares apportioned for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the members of his household. Some were of the opinion that it should be given to the Prophet's successor while others held the view that it should be distributed among the members of the Prophet's household. Others, yet, were of the opinion that it should be given to the caliph's relatives. Finally, a consensus emerged among the Companions that both these shares be spent in the cause of jihad. 'Aṭā' ibn al-Sa'ib informs that, during his reign, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al- 'Aziz decided to give the shares of the Prophet and his household to the Banu Hashim. However, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and the majority of Ḥanafi jurists are of the opinion that the practice of the Rightly-guided Caliphs should be followed (Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharaj, pp. 19-21). Imam al-Shafi'i was of the opinion that the rich and the poor among the Banu Hashim and the Banu 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib should be given a share of fay' (Mughnī al-Muḥtāj). The Ḥanafi position is that only the poor from among the Banū Hāshim are entitled for help from fay' and, in this, they have priority over others (Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī). For Imām Malik, the Islamic state is not bound by any rule regarding this matter and it is free to spend it as it sees fit. It is, nonetheless, preferable to give priority to the Prophet's household (Ḥāshiyat al-Dasüqī ‘alā al-Sharḥ al-Kabir).

There is no disagreement among the jurists regarding the other three shares. However, Imam al-Shafi'i differs from the other three leading Imāms. He is of the opinion that the fay' must be divided into five equal shares, one-fifth of which must be spent on the common interests of the Muslims; another share on the Banū Hāshim and the Banu al-Muṭṭalib; another share on the orphans; one share on the poor and another on

the wayfarers. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Imam Ahmad, however, do not agree with this division, in their opinion, all fay' should be spent on the welfare and common benefit of the Muslims (Mughnī al-Muḥtāj).

14. This is one of the most important verses of the Qur'an. This verse spells out a basic principle of the economic policy of the Islamic state and government that wealth should be circulated among the whole community, rather than just among the rich, in order to prevent the rich from getting richer and the poor poorer. The Qur'an does not state it only as a policy, it also forbids usury for the same consideration. Other Islamic commands to the same effect are the mandatory Zakāt, the payment of the khums out of the spoils of war, the repeated exhortation to give extra charity, and the forms of expiation which place wealth at the disposal of the poorer section of society. Likewise, the Islamic law of inheritance seeks to spread the dead person's wealth widely. In the Islamic moral code, miserliness is strongly condemned while generosity is considered a great virtue. The rich are instructed to give a share of their wealth to the needy and the deprived, not as a voluntary charity but as their rightful due. The law regarding fay', which is an important source of state income, is that a share of it must be spent on helping and supporting the poor in society. It should also be borne in mind that there are two main sources of income for the Islamic state: (1) Zakāt and (2) fay'. Zakat is levied on the Muslims whose wealth exceeds a minimum threshold (Niṣab) as well as on their cattle, trade goods and agricultural products. As such, Zakat is meant for the poor elements of society. Included in fay' are the incomes collected from jizyah and kharāj. A major share of this income is also earmarked for helping the poor. This clearly indicates that the Islamic state must manage its income and expenditure as well as all other financial and economic matters of the whole state in a way that prevents the rich from having monopoly over the sources of wealth. In such wealth there is the definite share of the beggar and the indigent, which should be discharged not only as charity but also as the right of the concerned people.

15. Although this command was revealed in conjunction with the distribution of the properties of the Banu al-Naḍīr, the terms in which it is couched are of general applicability. The verse directs the Muslims to obey the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in all matters and the purpose of the injunction becomes clearer if one considers the words that are used: "So accept whatever the Messenger gives you, and refrain from whatever he forbids you." Here, the words used in opposition to "whatever the Messenger gives you" are not "whatever he does not give you". Instead, the words used are: "and refrain from whatever he forbids you." Had the intent of the command been to discuss the distribution of fay' properties, it would have made a pointed reference to what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not give. The use of the expression: "whatever he forbids you" means obedience to the Prophet's commands. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself brought home the same point, as is evident from the following ḥadīth narrated by Abu Hurayrah: "When I command you something, act on it to the best of your ability and when I forbid you something, refrain from it" (al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-I'tiṣām bi'l-Kitāb wa'l-Sunnah, 6; and Muslim, Kitāb al-Faḍā'il, 13 and Kitāb al-Ḥajj, 412). It is reported that 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud once said: "God has cursed the women who are given to fashion." Upon hearing this, a woman approached him and asked him about the source of his assertion as she had not come across it in the Qur'an. To this he replied: "Had you studied the Book of God, you would have certainly noted it. Did you not read this Qur'ānic verse: "Accept whatever the Messenger gives you and refrain from whatever he forbids you"? She submitted: "Yes, I have read this verse." It was then that 'Abdullah told her: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had forbidden these acts and informed that God has cursed those women who are guilty of it. That woman admitted her mistake and affirmed that she stood corrected (al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Tafsir, 4, Kitāb al- Talaq, 51, Kitab al-Libās," 82 and 83; Muslim, Kitāb al-Libās, 120; Musnad of Imam Ahmad, 1, 434, 454 and 460; and Musnad Ibn Abī Ḥātim).

16. The reference here is to those people who had been expelled from Makkah and other regions in Arabia because of accepting Islam. Until the conquest of the Banu al-Naḍīr's territory, these Muhajirun did not have any regular source of income. The Qur'an therefore commanded that the spoils of this battle as well as all that is gained in future as fay' be spent on the poor, orphans, wayfarers and these Muhajirūn. All those who had migrated to the abode of Islam had to be supported on account of their acceptance of Islam because they were forced to migrate for the sake of God and His Messenger. In view of this command, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) distributed part of the Banu al-Nadir's properties among the Muhajirūn to help them while the orchards gifted to them by the Anṣar were given back to the latter. It is, however, incorrect to assume that a share of fay' for the emigrants was specific to the time of the Prophetic Companions. What the verse means is that it is the duty of the Islamic government to look after the Muslims who are forced to flee, due to their faith, or take refuge in the territory of the Islamic state, to ensure their settlement and enable them to earn their bread. The state should therefore spend both the Zakāt and fay' money on this.

17. The people meant by this expression are the Anṣār. The purpose of this injunction was to drive home the fact that not only the Muhajirün but also those Muslims who had been living in the abode of Islam (i.e. Madinah) before the Hijrah are entitled to a share in the fay'.

18. This is in praise of the Anṣār of Madīnah. As the Muhajirūn arrived in Madīnah from Makkah and other places, these Anṣār made this offer to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Here are our orchards and oases, distribute these among us and our Muhājirūn brethren," to which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) responded: "They do not know how to cultivate; they are from a region where there are no orchards. Can we not have this arrangement that you work in your orchards and oases and give them a share out of their produce?" They replied: "We hear and we obey" (al-Bukhārī and Ibn Jarir). Upon hearing this, the Muhajirūn exclaimed: "We have not come across such selfless people: they will do all the hard work and yet they will give us a share. We think they will get all the reward for this selfless act." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) remarked: "No, not so! As long as you praise them and pray for their welfare, you will also keep earning reward" (Musnad of Imam Ahmad). When the Banu al-Naḍīr's territory was conquered, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) suggested that the properties left behind by the Jews, consisting of orchards and oases, be joined together with those of the Anṣār and, together, the entire property be distributed among the Anṣār and the Muhajirūn. The other proposal was that the Anṣār retain their properties while those left behind by the Jews be distributed among the Muhājirūn. The Anṣār submitted: "Please distribute these properties among them. You are free to give out to them even of our properties." Then Abu Bakr exclaimed: "O Anṣār! May God grant you an excellent reward" (Yaḥya ibn Ādam and al- Balādhurī). Thus, with the Anṣār's consent, the properties left behind by the Jews were distributed among the Muhājirūn. Among the Anṣār, only Abū Dujānah, Sahl ibn Hunayf and, according to some reports, al- Harith ibn al Şimmah were given a share for they were extremely poor (al-Baladhuri, Ibn Hisham and Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī). The Anṣar displayed the same self-sacrificing spirit when Bahrain was annexed to the Islamic state. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to give the Anṣār the properties of this conquered land but they said: "We will not take any share unless the same is granted to our Muhājirūn brethren" (Yaḥyā ibn Adam). God speaks highly of such selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the Anṣār.

19. The Qur'an asserts that they were saved. For, without God's help and support, no one can attain contentment and peace of mind. Moreover, God grants this bounty out of His grace. In Arabic, shuḥḥ is used for miserliness and stinginess. When the same expression is used in relation to the self, it connotes meanness and small mindedness which is something worse than miserliness and lies at the core of one's miserly conduct. Far from recognizing someone's due and paying it, a mean person does not even acknowledge any virtue in others. He is after amassing everything for himself he desires so that no one else gets anything. Not only does he refuse to give anything to others, it hurts him to see someone else give something to others. He swayed by greed so much that he usurps others' due. He earnestly wants to grab everything good around him for himself and not leave anything for others. The Qur'an therefore asserts: "Whosoever are preserved from their greed, such are the ones that will prosper" (Surah al-Ḥashr, 59: 9). In other words, those who shun this evil are bound to prosper. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) condemns it as a wicked human trait which is the root cause of all discord and mischief. According to Jābir ibn 'Abdullāh, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned: "Fear greed for it has destroyed those before you. It incited them to shed blood and declare lawful what is unlawful" (Muslim, Kitāb al-Birr, 56; Musnad of Imām Ahmad, 2, 160, 191 and 3, 323; and al-Bayhaqi and al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al- Adab). 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar's report carries these words: "It is greed which prompted them to do injustice and they did commit it; it incited them to indulge in evil and they committed it; it impelled them to sever their ties of kinship which they did" (Musnad Ahmad, 2, 160 and 191; Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Zakāt, 46). Abū Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Faith and meanness cannot co-exist in one heart" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Nasa'i, al-Bayhaqī and al-Ḥākim). Ḥaḍrat Abū Sa'id al-Khudrī related that the Prophet said: "There are two traits which cannot co-exist in the Muslim: miserliness and ill-manners" (Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhi and al-Bukhārī). It is on account of such Islamic teachings that, as a community, leaving aside individuals, the Muslim community is the most generous and large-hearted community in the world. Members of other communities, notorious for their meanness and miserliness, live in the midst of Muslims and millions of Muslims live together with non-Muslims of the same ethnic origin. However, the two stand apart in terms of their generosity and their Islamic moral code accounts for their large-heartedness.

20. These Qur'ānic commands prescribed that God, His Messenger, the Prophet's relatives, the orphans, the poor, the wayfarers, the Muhājirūn, the Anṣār and the future generations of Muslims have a share in fay'. In view of this significant Qur'anic law, the Caliph 'Umar made new arrangements for the lands and properties of the conquered territories of Iraq, Syria and Egypt while taking into account the existing properties of former rulers. As these territories fell to the Muslims, some leading Companions, including al-Zubayr, Bilāl, 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn 'Awf, and Salman al-Fārisī, insisted that these lands should be distributed among the warriors of the Muslim army. They believed that these properties were not covered by the verse: "Whatever God has taken away from them and bestowed as spoils on His Messenger for which you spurred neither horses nor camels" (Surah al-Hashr 59: 6). They believed that the Muslims have conquered these lands by using their horses and camels and, therefore, should be designated as spoils of war, except for towns and territories that pledged obedience without any resistance. Accordingly, one- fifth of their lands should form part of the public treasury while the remaining four-fifths should be distributed among the army. However, their stance was rejected on the ground that, during the Prophet's era, the lands and properties of conquered territories were not treated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as spoils nor did he distribute four-fifths of these among the army. The two instances in point are the conquest of Makkah and Khaybar; he handed over Makkah to the local residents without touching it at all; as for Khaybar, Bushayr ibn Yasar reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) divided it into 36 parts, 18 of which were earmarked for public welfare while the other 18 were distributed among the army (Abū Dāwūd, al- Bayhaqi, Abū 'Ubayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl; Yaḥyā ibn Ādam, Kitāb al-Kharāj, al-Balādhuri, Futūḥ al-Buldān; and Ibn al-Humām, Fath al-Qadīr. The Prophet's action demonstrated that conquered lands are not considered spoils of war, otherwise he would not have returned Makkah to its local residents nor earmark half of the proceeds from Khaybar for public welfare. What is evident from the Sunnah is that the head of state is free to exercise his discretion regarding conquered territories, depending on the circumstances of the day. He may divide them or, in special cases such as with Makkah, treat its people differently, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had behaved towards the people of Makkah.

However, the Prophet's era did not witness many conquests. The Muslims were not aware of the various commands relating to different conquered territories and, as vast countries fell to the Muslims during the reign of the Caliph 'Umar, the Companions were unsure whether a conquered territory is considered booty (ghanimah) or fay'. After the conquest of Egypt, al-Zubayr demanded that the right thing to do is to: "Distribute the entire territory as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had done in the case of Khaybar" (Abū Ubayd). Likewise, regarding the conquered territories of Syria and Iraq, Bilal insisted: "Let the farmers retain the land so that it may serve as a source of income for the Muslims" (Abū Yūsuf and Abū 'Ubayd). The opinion of Mu'adh ibn Jabal was similar: "If you divide [it on the soldiers], it will have dire consequences as sprawling estates will be owned by the few people who have conquered these territories. And when they die, their estates will be inherited by their relatives. At times, they will have only one male or female as their successor, but the future generations of Muslims will not have any source of income nor will there be any means available for defending the Muslim territory. Devise a way which can protect the interests of both those who are now present and the future generations" (Abū 'Ubayd, p. 59 and Fath al-Bārī, 6, 138). 'Umar calculated the shares per capita and realised that, if he were to distribute the territory of Iraq, it would be two or three farmers per person (Abū Yusuf, Abū 'Ubayd). It was then that he became convinced that such territories should not be distributed. Accordingly, he responded to

those Companions who demanded its distribution by saying: "Do you want future generations to get nothing? (Abū 'Ubayd); what will be the fate of the future generations of Muslims when they will discover that the land has already been distributed and has its inheritors? This is not proper at all (Abū Yūsuf). What will be left for the Muslims in the future? Were I to distribute it, I fear that you will fight over water (Abū 'Ubayd). Had I not been concerned about the future generations, I would have distributed every territory I conquered, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had done in the case of Khaybar (al- Bukhārī, al-Muwaṭṭa' and Abū 'Ubayd). No, it is a real estate and I will retain it so that the needs of victorious army and those of the generality of Muslims are all met from it" (Abū ‘Ubayd).

The above answers by Caliph 'Umar did not pacify those Companions and they accused him of wrongdoing. Eventually, Umar held a consultative meeting and placed the matter before those present. Below are some extracts from his presentation at this meeting:

I have given you the trouble of sharing with me the burden placed on me regarding governance. I am one of you. Today you will decide what is right. You are free to support or oppose my stance. I do not want you to follow my desire. You possess the Book of God which declares the truth. By God, all my words and deeds are prompted by my desire to follow the truth... You have listened to those who think that I am guilty of wrongdoing by denying them their due. I seek God's protection against committing any wrongdoing. It would be very callous on my part to resort to wrongdoing, deny them what is their due and give it to someone else. However, I foresee that no territory will be conquered after Persia. God has placed the wealth, lands and farmers of Persia are at our disposal. As for the spoils of war won by our army, I have already distributed these among them, after taking out one-fifth of it. I intend to distribute the spoils which have not been distributed so far. However, regarding the land, I am of the view that these should not be distributed among them and their farmers, rather I will levy Kharaj on lands and jizyah on farmers which they will keep on paying and the same will constitute a fay' for all the Muslims, warring armies, Muslim children and their future generations. Do you not realise that there is a pressing need for people to defend our borders? Do you not agree that an army should be stationed in large territories such as Syria, al- Jazirah, Kufah, Basrah and Egypt and the soldiers must get their regular salary? If I were to distribute all the lands along with their farmers, how can we meet the expenditure on the above heads?

This debate lasted for two or three days, after which 'Uthman, ‘Ali, Talhah and 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar supported 'Umar's stance but a final decision could not be reached. Eventually, 'Umar rose and said: "I have laid my hands on a decisive Qur'ānic verse and then he recited verses 6 to 10 of Surah al-Hashr. He inferred from the above Qur'ānic passage that the properties granted by God are not special to the people of the day. Rather, God has prescribed a share in these for future generations. Given this, it would be improper to distribute the entire fay' among the warriors, without leaving anything for future generations. Furthermore, the Qur'anic command is that wealth should not merely circulate among the rich. If I were to distribute it among the conquerors, it would only be circulated between the rich among you, leaving nothing for others." This argument convinced everyone and they reached this consensus view that all the conquered territories be declared a fay' for the Muslims in general. Those working in the fields should be allowed to continue doing so and kharāj and jizyah be imposed (Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, 23-27 and 35; and al-Jaṣṣās, Kitāb Aḥkām al-Qur'ān).

In light of the above decision, the conquered land was declared the property of the Muslim community as a whole. The Muslims allowed the farmers to continue working in the fields, provided they paid a fixed contribution to the Islamic state. The right to farming was to pass on to their inheritors who would be free to sell these rights if they so wished. Nonetheless, they would not be the owners of the land. The Muslim community as a whole owns it. In his Kitāb al-Amwāl, Imām Abū ‘Ubayd states the following legal status of such lands: "Umar upheld the people of Iraq in their lands and imposed the jizyah on individuals and a tax on their lands" (p. 57). "When the head of the Islamic state upheld the people of conquered territories in their lands, the latter were able to transfer them as their own properties and sell these as well if they wished" (p. 84).

During the reign of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, al-Shabi was asked whether there was any agreement in place with the people of Iraq. He replied: "There is no agreement with them as such but once it was accepted that kharāj would be taken from them, this constituted an agreement with them." (Abū 'Ubayd, 49 and Abū Yusuf, 28)

During 'Umar's reign, Utbah ibn Farqad bought a land beside the Euphrates. 'Umar asked him about the seller of the land and when he replied: "From its owner," 'Umar told Utbah: "These Muhajirūn and

Anṣār are its owner." In 'Umar's opinion, the real owners of these lands were the Muslims (Abū 'Ubayd, p. 44).

In light of the above decision, the following properties of conquered territories were declared as collective assets of the Muslims:*

1. The lands and territories over which the Islamic state gains control as a result of a peace treaty;

2. That ransom, kharāj or jizyah be paid by the people of an area if they avoid fighting in order to be protected by the Muslims;

3. Such lands and properties which are abandoned by their owners who have fled;

4. Those properties whose owners are killed and, hence, they were without any owner;

5. The lands which are not owned;

6. The lands which are owned but whose former owners were upheld and jizyah and kharāj were imposed on them;

7. The properties of former ruling families;

8. The properties of former states.

Since these properties were declared as fay' through the Companions' consensus, Muslim jurists in principle consider these to be fay'. However, they have differed on certain points which are summarised below:

The Hanafi stance is that the Islamic state, or its head, in the parlance of the jurists, is authorised to take a decision regarding the lands of conquered territories. He may charge kharāj and distribute the rest among the conquering army or he may let its former owners retain them and impose kharāj and jizyah on these lands. In this case, these lands would be treated as a waqf (endowment) for the Muslims (Badā'i'ʻal- Ṣanā'i'; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān; Sharḥ al-'Ināyah ‘alā al-Hidāyah; and Fath al-Qadir). According to 'Abdullah ibn Mubarak, the above view was endorsed by Imām Sufyan al-Thawrī (Yaḥyā ibn Ādam and Abū 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Amwāl).

According to the Mālikīs, the victory of Muslims automatically renders any conquered land an endowment for the Muslims and, as such, does not require the head of the Islamic state to make a decision about it nor are the soldiers to be reconciled about this. The standard Māliki position is that not only the lands, but also the houses and buildings of conquered territories constitute an endowment for the Muslims but the Islamic state does not levy any rent on it (Ḥashiyat al-Dasūqi).

*(For details see: Bada'i' al-Ṣana'i', vol. 7, pp. 116-118; Yahya ibn Adam, Kitāb al-Kharāj, pp. 22-64; Mugnī al-Muḥtāj, vol. 3, p. 93; Hashiyat al-Dasūqī ‘alā al-Sharḥ al-Kabir, vol. 2, p. 190; Ghāyat al-Muntahā, vol. 1, pp. 467-471).

The Hanbalis share the Ḥanafi stance that the head of the Islamic state has a Qur'ānic right either to distribute the land among the conquering army or reserve it as an endowment for the Muslims. Likewise, they endorse the Mālikī position that houses within the conquered territories are also an endowment, even though without any rent (Ghāyat al-Muntahā is a collection of authentic Hanbali legal rulings. Hanbali rulings have been cited from this work which has been used by them since the 10th century).

The Shafi'i's stance maintains that all the transferable properties of conquered territories are spoils of war (ghanimah), while all non- transferable properties, including the land and houses, are fay' (Mughni al-Muḥtāj).

Some jurists maintain that if the head of the Islamic state declares the lands of conquered territories as endowment for Muslims, it is mandatory for him to secure first the consent of the conquering army. In this context, they argue that, prior to the conquest of Iraq, 'Umar had promised Jarīr ibn 'Abdullah al-Bajalī, whose tribe formed one-fourth of the army at the battle of al-Qadisiyyah, that he would grant them one-fourth of the conquered territory. For two to three years they owned this area. Then 'Umar told them: "Had I not been responsible and accountable for the distribution of land, you would have retained what was granted to you. I, therefore, hold the view that you should return it to the general public." Jarir agreed to this and 'Umar rewarded him with eighty dīnārs (Abū Yusuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj and Abū 'Ubayd, Kitāb al-Amwāl). Their argument is that 'Umar had declared the conquered territories as an endowment for the Muslims only after securing the consent of the conquering army. However, the majority of jurists do not support this argument for no such consent was secured from all the conquering soldiers. It was only Jarir ibn 'Abdullah who was mentioned because, prior to the victory and before any collective decision was made regarding conquered territory, 'Umar had promised to give him three-fourth of the land. In order to go back on this promise, 'Umar sought Jarir's consent, which means that this cannot be generalised as a legal ruling.

A group of jurists are of the opinion that, even after being declared as an endowment, the state may, at a later stage, distribute the land among the conquerors, citing as proof 'Ali's address to the people: "I would have distributed the territory among you if I did fear that you would fight amongst yourselves” (Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj, Abū ‘Ubayd, Kitab al-Amwāl). However, the unanimous view is that, once the people of conquered territories are upheld, subject to their payment of jizyah and Kharaj, this decision cannot be overturned. As for the report regarding 'Alī, Abu Bakr al-Jaṣṣās has discussed it at length in his Aḥkām al-Qur'ān and he established that it is not an authentic report.

21. A share in fay' was not only meant for the present generation, future generations also had a claim over it. Through this verse, the Muslims were provided with an important moral directive: that they should nurture in their hearts no feeling of spite or rancour towards other Muslims; in fact, they should pray for the forgiveness for other Muslims rather than hurl curses and abuse at them. The right course of action for Muslims is to seek forgiveness for the Muslims who preceded them. Faith binds all Muslims together. If one places premium on faith, one would naturally act sincerely towards one's brethren in faith. One is hostile and unkind to them only when one does not highly value faith and prefers something else to faith. It is a pre-requisite of faith for the believer not to have any spite or rancour towards another believer. This lesson is taught best by the following ḥadīth narrated by al-Nasa'i on the authority of Anas who said: "Once, and for three consecutive days, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stated in his assembly that there would appear before them one person who is a dweller of Paradise. On each occasion one particular Companion from the Anṣār did appear. Upon noting this, 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr became curious and wanted to find out what entitled him to the good news given by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So, on some pretext, he spent three nights at the house of that man from the Anṣār to ascertain the extent of his worship. However, he did not notice anything special about his worship. Finally, he asked that man from the Anṣār about the reason which brought upon him such good news. He replied: "You have already seen the extent of my acts of worship. Perhaps the good news might have been prompted by the fact that I do not harbour any ill feelings towards any believer nor do I feel jealous over any bounty granted by God to anyone."

This does not mean that the Muslim should not correct his fellow Muslims over their mistakes in word or deed. Faith does not require supporting a fellow Muslim who is in the wrong and there is nothing in Islam to prevent his criticism. However, such criticism should be cogent, decent and free from any spite, hostility, ill manners or abuse. One should not treat one's contemporaries in the above manner. It is all the more reprehensible if one were to revile one's predecessors, for only an evil person would fail to forgive the dead. Far worse than that is to speak ill of those who were faithful and sincere Companions of the Prophet in adverse circumstances. They put their lives at stake in order to promote Islam in the world. It is thanks to their striving that we are blessed with the bounty of faith. As for their mutual differences, one may justify the conduct of some of them and disagree with that of others. One is entitled to hold such an opinion and one may even express this view in a decent manner. However, it is not expected of a pious person to go to extremes in supporting one group while being grossly hostile and spiteful towards others or speaking ill against them verbally or in writing. Those guilty of such misconduct, which contravenes the Qur'ān, defend themselves by claiming that the Qur'an forbids rancour against the believers whereas their hostility is not towards the believers but the hypocrites. However, such a defence is far worse than their misconduct, for their pretext is equally loathsome. The Qur'an instructs the Muslims not to have any rancour for those Muslims who came before them and, instead tried to make supplications for their forgiveness. This Qur'ānic directive refutes the above pretext. These verses entitle three groups to have a share in fay': the Muhajirün, the Anṣār and the Muslims of future generations. They are asked to seek forgiveness for the earlier Muslims who preceded them in accepting faith. It is evident from the context that the allusion is only to the Muhajirūn and the Anṣār. Furthermore, verses 11-17 of this Surah expose the hypocrites who had supported the Jews in the battle against the Banu al-Naḍīr. As opposed to them, there were Muslims who had joined the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in this battle. In the face of all this, the Muslim who fears God cannot dare question the integrity and faith of those whose excellent conduct is endorsed by the God Himself.

Imām Mālik and Imām Aḥmad infer from the above verse that those who revile the Prophet's Companions do not have any share in fay' (Ibn al-'Arabi, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān and Ghāyat al-Muntahā). However, the Ḥanafis and Shafi'is do not subscribe to this opinion. What accounts for this is that, while praising these three groups of Muslims and declaring them to be stakeholders in fay', God highlights their respective hallmarks. Yet, there is no precondition for their getting a share in fay'. The Qur'an does not state at all that only those who are endowed with these features are entitled to a share in fay'. The Qur'ān speaks of the Muhajirūn as being those who seek the favour, good-pleasure and help of God and His Messenger. This does not at all mean that the Muhājir who is devoid of the above will not get a share in fay'. Likewise, it is said, regarding the Anṣār, that they love those who migrated to them and do not covet what has been given to the Muhajirūn and even prefer them above themselves, even though poverty is their lot. Once again, it does not imply that an individual from the Anṣār who does not love the Muhajirūn and covets what is given to them will be denied a share in fay'. It is said regarding the latter group that they pray for the forgiveness of the believers who preceded them and do not have any rancour towards other fellow believers. Again, this is not a precondition for a share in fay'. Rather, the above passage spells out some features of excellent conduct. Furthermore, it highlights how the believers should behave towards other fellow believers, especially those who have preceded them.

22. The whole passage (verses 11-17) is a commentary on the hypocrites' attitude and behaviour. This relates to the time when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) served a notice to the Banu al- Nadir to leave Madīnah within ten days but had not yet laid siege to the district in which they lived. At that stage, the chiefs of the hypocrites sent to the Banu al-Naḍīr a message informing them that he will assist them with 2000 men and that the Banu Qurayzah and the tribe of Ghaṭafān would also come to their aid. They were therefore urged to confront the Muslims courageously and not surrender their arms. They assured the Banu al-Naḍīr that they would fight side-by-side with them were they to be attacked by the Muslims; and, if things came to such a pass that the Banu al-Naḍīr were banished, they too would go into exile with them. It is against this background that the above verses were revealed. Chronologically speaking, this Qur'ānic passage was revealed before the verses 1-10 of the same Surah. It was revealed after the exile of the Banu al- Naḍir from Madīnah. Here, the Qur'an does not follow the chronological order of revelation in that the previous passage (verses 1-10) carries a more important message than the one in the other passage (11-17).

23. They do not come out in the open due to their beliefs nor do they have any fear of God in their hearts. Likewise, they are not afraid of their accountability before God on the Day of Judgement when they will be taken to task for having preferred the unbelievers to Muslims, notwithstanding their claim of having faith. What obstructs their public appearance is their sense of demoralization; they observed the overflowing love and sacrifice that the Companions had for Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and also the strong unity of the Muslims. They knew well that the Muslims were few in number and, yet, each and every Muslim was a fervent warrior. The Muslims have emerged as a very strong group and so, if anyone takes them on, through joining the Jews, they would be routed. Indeed, if someone fears another person more than God, it means that he considers his threat more serious than God's threat and his mind and energy will be focussed only on such a threat.

24. The statement that the hypocrites were "devoid of understanding" succinctly epitomises a great truth. Anyone who is granted a true understanding of things is aware that it is God Who is to be held in awe rather than any other human being. Hence, the wise person would strive to avoid all acts that make him liable to God's censure, whether or not any other human being censures him for that action. Likewise, if God enjoins him to perform a duty, he rises to perform it even if he faces the whole world's opposition in this regard. The person who lacks true understanding and wisdom is someone who takes into account how other human beings perceive his actions and is not at all concerned about how God sees him. If he avoids doing something, he does not do so because he believes that he will be held to account by God but rather because of his fear that some human authority would bring him to book. Likewise, if he does something, it is not because God had enjoined it, but it is rather because there exists some authority that either commands or commends doing it. It is this understanding, or lack of it, that distinguishes the attitude and character of the believer from that of the unbeliever.

25. This brings to the fore another weakness of the hypocrites. Their major weakness is that they are cowardly. Instead of fearing God, they feared other fellow human beings and did not have any noble ideal to live for. As a result, and unlike the believers, they did not have any sense of contentment. Their other major flaw was that hypocrisy was the only common ground among them, hence they did not, and could not, develop into a strong group. What brought them together was their jealousy over the power and authority enjoyed by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), even though he was a migrant to their city. It hurt them badly that the local Anṣār received the Muhajirun so warmly. Driven away by their jealousy, and in collusion with the neighbouring enemies of Islam, they wanted to exterminate Islam altogether. Apart from these negative thoughts, they did not have any positive agenda. Each group among the hypocrites had its own leader who wanted to establish his supremacy. They were not sincere towards one another; in fact, they had such hostility towards each other that, even while confronting a common enemy, they did not overlook their mutual differences. They were given to opposing and eliminating one another.

Thus, at the outset, even before the battle against the Banu al-Nadir, God apprised the Muslims of the inner condition of the hypocrites, telling them that they need not fear any alarm from them. They should not panic on hearing reports that the chief of the hypocrites will come out with a strong army of two-thousand soldiers or that the Banu Qurayzah and the Banu Ghaṭfān will join them in their attack on the Muslims when they besiege the Banu al-Naḍīr, as their lie will soon be exposed.

26. This alludes to the disbelivers of the Quraysh and the Jews of the Banu Qaynuqā' who, despite their superiority in terms of numbers and weapons, were vanquished by a handful of ill-equipped Muslims because of these very weaknesses of theirs.

27. These hypocrites had been behaving towards the Banū al-Naḍīr in the same way that Satan misleads men. Today they tell the Banū al-Naḍīr to attack the Muslims, promising to help and support them. However, when they actually wage war, these hypocrites will renege on their promise and pledge and fail, rather not even care, to find out the lot of the Banū al-Naḍīr. This is how Satan treated the unbelievers. He deluded the Makkan unbelievers in the same fashion at the battle of Badr as detailed in verse 48 of Surah al-Anfāl. First, Satan spurred on the unbelievers and drove them to Badr for fighting against the Muslims, telling them: "None shall overcome you today, and I am your supporter." But when the two armies faced each other, he turned on his heels, saying: "Surely I renounce you, for I behold (the angels) that which you do not. Indeed I fear God" (Surah al-Anfal, 8: 48).

28. It is a rule of the Qur'ānic discussion that, while it criticizes the hypocrites, it admonishes them as well so that their conscience may prick them and they repent from their misconduct and, out of fearing God, they may then seek a way out of the morass in which their base egos had thrown them. The above Qur'ānic passage is illustrative of the same note of admonition and exhortation.

29. The words "for the morrow" refers to the Hereafter. In other words, the assumption is that the life of this world constitutes "today" whose "morrow" is the Day of the Resurrection. Through this approach, the Qur'an instructs man that he will lose everything in this life out of foolishness and, hence, he should think about his future. In the future if one spends today all that one has, one will not have any food or shelter tomorrow. Going by the same analogy, one who is totally given to worldliness is actually engaged in self-destruction in that one has completely forgotten the life to come. One does so even though the Day of Judgement is imminent. If one does not make any preparation for the next life, one will not get anything there. Another gem of guidance contained in the above Qur'ānic passage is that everyone should do his own soul-searching. Unless one develops a discerning attitude, one will not be able to realise whether one's actions will make or mar one's fortune in the next life. Once one develops this sense, one can ascertain whether one's time, assets, hard work, talents and efforts are directed towards one's entry into Paradise or Hell. Such an introspection is in one's own interest. If one does not act thus, one will ruin one's own future itself.

30. If one forgets God, this inevitably leads one to forget one's ownself. When man forgets that he is God's servant, he assigns to himself a position that is basically flawed. Thus, his whole life is oriented in the wrong direction because of this misperception. When this happens, he refrains from serving God even though he is His servant and, instead, serves many others, even though he is not their servant. Thus, this serious misunderstanding completely leads him astray. One's adherence to the straight way depends on one's God- consciousness. Once one forgets God, one also forgets oneself and this is what turns one into a wicked person.

31. This parable stresses the awesomeness of the responsibilities symbolised by the Qur'anic revelation. The Qur'an extols God's greatness and states in clear and emphatic terms how immense man's responsibility is towards God. Had any mountain been endowed with the understanding granted to man, it would have trembled and shivered with fear. It is indeed outrageous that man is so insensitive and negligent that he understands the Qur'ān, knows ultimate reality and, yet, he is so fearless and never feels concerned about his accountability to God regarding his responsibilities. He is unmoved even after listening to the Qur'an or upon reading it. But when he is thus, he is like an inanimate rock which is incapable of hearing, seeing or understanding. (For further details, see: Towards Understanding the Qur'ān, vol. 4, Surah al-Aḥzāb 33: 120).

32. These verses present God Who has sent this Qur'ān to man, placed certain responsibility on him and to Him he is accountable. This passage sheds light on the Ddivine Names and Attributes. This account of Divine Attributes, following the above discussion, should make man realise that he is not faced with an ordinary being, rather he is dealing with Almighty God Who has excellent attributes. At places, the Qur'ān described God's unique qualities which project a comprehensive concept of God. However, in two instances, Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 255 (The Verse of the Throne) and al-Hashr, 59: 22-24, the Divine Attributes have been presented extensively and vividly.

33. No one other than God holds such an exalted position which entitles him to be worshipped. And the one who is devoid of Divine Attributes and Powers cannot be an object of worship.

34. He knows whatever is hidden from the creatures and also everything they know. Nothing in this universe lies outside His Knowledge. He directly knows the past, present and future. He is not dependent on any means or source of knowledge.

35. He alone stands out for His boundless Mercy. He embraces the entire universe and benefits all that is in it. No one in the universe is equal to Him in His vast and all-encompassing Mercy. The mercy of all those who are merciful is limited and partial and, moreover, their attributes are not their own. Rather, their Creator has endowed them with these attributes for certain considerations. God has infused mercy into His creatures in order for them to show it to other fellow creatures because it is the means of their sustenance and prosperity. This arrangement in itself underscores God's overflowing Mercy.

36. The Qur'ānic expression al-Malik is used here in the sense that God is the true Sovereign, and since this Qur'ānic expression is used in its

absolute sense, it means that His kingdom extends to the entire universe and is not limited to any particular territory. He reigns supreme in the whole universe and He owns everything. All that exists in the universe is under His control and is subordinated to His command just as there is nothing that can circumscribe His sovereignty. At other places, too, the Qur'an highlights God's absolute sovereignty thus:

a. "To Him belong all who are in the heavens and all who are on the earth. All are in obedience to Him" (Sūrah al-Rūm, 30: 26);

b. He governs from the heavens to the earth (Surah al-Sajdah 32: 5);

c. His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth and to Him alone are all matters referred (for judgement) (Sūrah al-Ḥadīd, 57:5).

d. He has not taken any partner in His kingdom (Surah al-Furqān, 25: 2);

e. He has full control over everything (Surah Yā Sīn, 36: 83); f. He is the Executer of what He wills (Surah al-Burūj, 85: 16); g. None shall question Him about what He does but all others are accountable (to Him) (Sūrah al-Anbiyā', 21: 23);

h. God judges, and no one has the power to reverse His judgement (Surah al-Ra'd, 13: 41);

J. He grants asylum, but against whom no asylum is available (Surah al-Mu'minun, 23: 88);

k. O God, Lord of all dominion! You bestow dominion on whomever You please, and take away dominion from whomever you please, and You exalt whom You please, and abase whom You please. In Your hand is all good. Surely You are All- Powerful (Surah Al 'Imrān, 3:26);

It is evident from the above Qur'anic passages that God's kingdom or sovereignty is neither limited nor symbolic. He has total kingship in the truest sense and true kingship is found only with Him. Other than Him whoever claims to be a king, whether he is an emperor or a dictator with control over a class or group or family or community, does not have any real power. For true kingship does not consist in what is granted to one and may be taken away, or is under constant threat from someone else, or is only for a short period of time. Such a rule is challenged and limited by many powers that confront and oppose it.

The Qur'an does not rest content with stating that God is the King of the universe but further asserts that He is a King Who is Holy (al-Quddus), the Source of All Peace (al-Salām), the Giver of security

(al-Mu'min), the Overseer (al-Muhaymin), the Most Almighty (al-'Aziz), the Overwhelming (al-Jabbār), the Creator (al-Khaliq), the Designer, the Planner, the Executor and Fashioner (al-Bāri' and al-Muṣawwir) (whatever is in the heavens and the earth extols His Glory, He is the Most Mighty, the Most Wise [yusabbiḥu lahu mā fī al-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ wa huwa al-'Azīzu al-Ḥakīm) [Surah al-Ḥashr, 59: 27].

37. The Qur'anic word al-Quddus is an intensive form of the root word Quds. Literally it stands for someone who is free from all evil and has absolute power. That God is Most Holy signifies that He is above and beyond any imperfection or evil trait. On the contrary, He is so Holy that no evil can be associated with Him. Such holiness is a pre-requisite of true kingship for it is beyond man's understanding and nature to recognise someone as a king who is mischievous, ill-mannered and of evil intention or is tainted by anything bad. Man does not accept as a king someone who may do evil to his subjects rather than working for their good. When man invests someone with kingship, even though he is not holy, he presupposes his holiness because total power is unthinkable without it. It goes without saying that no authority, other than God, is holy and no one can claim such an authority except Him. Holiness cannot be ascribed to monarchy, democracy, communism or any other human form of governance.

38. The Qur'anic word al-salām connotes peace. Once again, it is an intensive form of silm which means peace and security. God is an embodiment of peace and no imperfection, weakness or flaw is associated with Him, nor is His perfection subject to any decline.

39. The Qur'anic word al-Mu'min is derived from amn which refers to security from all fear. A Mu'min is the one who provides security to others. God is spoken of as al-Mu'min because He lets His creatures enjoy security. His created beings feel absolutely secure from Him in that He does not wrong them or deprive them of their due or denies them their reward nor will He ever break His promises to them.

The Qur'an describes God as the Giver of security in an absolute sense and His security blesses the entire universe and that which exists in it.

40. The word used in the text is al-Muhaymin which has three meanings (1) the Guardian and Protector; (2) the One Who observes all the deeds of others; and (3) the Provider. Once again, this attribute is used apropos Him in an absolute sense. It is not specific to His overseeing of anyone in particular. God cares for, witnesses and looks after all His created beings and watches everyone's acts and deeds. Likewise, He bears the responsibility of caring, providing sustenance and meeting the needs and requirements of every creature in the universe.

41. The Qur'anic word al-'Azīz means the Most Mighty Who cannot be challenged by anyone and Whose decision is contested by none, for all are helpless before Him.

42. The word al-Jabbār is derived from jabr which means to place things in order by force and thus improving them. In the Arabic idiom jabr is used both for improvement as well as for the exalted authority of someone. Its true meaning is the use of force for putting things right. God is al-Jabbar in the sense that He maintains a perfect functioning of His universe by His will. Likewise, He enforces His intent which is characterised by perfect wisdom. This attribute underscores His glory. In the Arabic language, a palmtree is known as al-Jabbār because it is so high and tall that it is almost impossible to pluck its fruit. Likewise, a mighty action which is grand and glorious is also called 'amal jabbār.

43. The Qur'anic word al-Mutakabbir has two meanings: (1) someone who is not actually great but pretends to be mighty; and (2) somoene who is truly exalted. Neither man nor Satan nor any other creature possesses any greatness and, hence, their claim to greatness and their show of might are false claims and serious flaws. By contrast, God is indeed Most Exalted, Almighty and glory befits Him. Everything in the universe is lowly, insignificant and worthless in comparison to Him. His exaltedness does not therefore stem from any false claim or pretention;

it is the truth. Far from being something reprehensible, it stands out as His distinctive attribute which is not found in anyone else.

44. People associate some created beings with God in His power, authority, attributes or being. Those guilty of this tell a lie. God is too exalted to have any associate in any sense of the word.

45. The entire world and all that is in it, from its conception to its emergence in its particular form, are overseen by God and nothing comes into being by itself or is created by chance, nor does anyone have any role at all in the creation and evolution of anything that exists. God's creative power is described here in three stages which follow one after another. Khalq is the first stage which means planning. This may be likened to an engineer's blueprint for a building which he designs before constructing it for a particular purpose. His design spells out the detailed outline and overall picture of the building to be constructed. Al-Bar' is the next stage which literally means to separate and tear. It means that He executes His Divine Plan and creates out of nothing all that He wills in accordance with His design. Once again, this may be likened to measurement, earthwork, foundation, walls and all the stages of construction of the building originally designed by Him. The third stage is taṣwir which represents fashioning something in its complete and perfect form. All the three stages of creation have nothing in common with man's accomplishments. Everything that man designs is but a replica of some earlier models. In comparison, each and every design of God is unprecedented and a manifestation of His creative wonderness. Everything that man creates is based on the material already provided by God; he cannot create anything out of nothing. At most, he employs various techniques for producing something new out of things that already exist. As compared to this, God creates everything out of nothing. He created matter out of which this world is created. Thus, man does not have any claim to originality in the things he fashions. He is an imitator of the forms, shapes and designs which were already put in place by God (al-Bāri'). It is God Who is the true Fashioner Who has brought into being the unique forms of all the species and their members. He has not replicated the same shape or form.

46. Reference' here is to the Divine Attributes. "That God has excellent names" indicates that such names do not befit him who betrays any defect. God should be remembered with reference to such names which denote His perfect being. The Qur'an recurrently mentions God's excellent Names. Ninety-nine excellent Divine Names are recorded in ḥadīth narrated by Ibn Majah on the authority of Abu Hurayrah's exhaustive report. On studying these Divine Names mentioned in the Qur'an and Ḥadīth corpus, one may get a clear idea of suitable names that befit referring to God, invoking and remembering Him.

47. This means that all that exists proclaims either by words or by the very fact of its existence that the Creator is free from any kind of flaw, deficiency, weakness or error.

48. For explanation see: Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. 5, Surah al-Hadid, 57: n. 2.