1. It will be appropriate at the outset to mention the details of the incident regarding which these verses were revealed because this helps in understanding these verses better. The commentators of the Qur'ān agree, in addition to the unanimous opinion of Ibn 'Abbās, Mujāhid, Qatadah, 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr and others, that these verses were revealed when the letter of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Balta‘ah addressed to the pagans of Makkah was intercepted. This letter contained information about the Prophet's preparation to launch an attack on Makkah. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not tell anyone about his plan about the expedition except for a few close Companions. Coincidently, a woman (a former slave-girl of the Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib) came at that time from Makkah to Madīnah. After being freed, she worked as a singer and dancer. She told the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about her poor financial condition and sought some help and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked the Banu 'Abd al-Muṭṭalib to help her. When she was about to return to Makkah, Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʻah met her and quietly gave her a letter addressed to some chiefs of Makkah and paid her ten dīnārs to make sure that she does not disclose this secret mission and deliver his letter confidentially to them. Just when she left Madīnah, Allah informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of this. Immediately, he deputed ‘Alī, al-Zubayr and al-Miqdād ibn al-Aswad to catch up with her swiftly and intercept her at Rawḍat al-Khākh, 12 miles from Madīnah on the way to Makkah. He told them that she was carrying Hatib's letter to the polytheistic chiefs and that they were to secure that letter by any means. He instructed them to let her go if she hands over the letter willingly, otherwise they should kill her. When these Companions reached that spot, they found her there. They asked her to hand over the letter which she denied having. They searched her but could not find the letter. When they told her that they will strip her and do a body search on her if she failed to give them the letter, she realised that there was no way of escaping for her and handed over the letter which she had hidden in her hair plait. They presented it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who, upon reading it out, discovered that it informed the Quraysh of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) imminent attack on Makkah. (Several reports have recorded variant narrations of this letter but the gist of the content is identical). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) questioned Ḥatib about this fact, he submitted but said: "Do not take a hasty action against me. I have not done this because I have become an unbeliever or apostate nor do I prefer unbelief to Islam. The fact is that my family is still in Makkah. I do not belong to the tribe of Quraysh but had settled there owing to the protection granted to me by some members of Quraysh. The families of the Muhājirūn which are still in Makkah will be protected by their respective tribes and clans whereas I do not have any tribe there to protect my family. I sent them the letter in the hope that the Quraysh will recognise it as a favour done to them by me and consequently not harm my family." ('Abd al-Rahman, Ḥāṭib's son, states that Hatib's children and brothers were still in Makkah then.) One also learns from other reports that Hatib's mother was also in Makkah. After listening to Hatib's version of events, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told him: "O Ḥāṭib, you have spoken the truth," meaning that his explanation was the only motive of sending his letter for, in doing so, he was not prompted by enmity to Islam or by any intention to support the disbelievers. 'Umar rose, saying: "O Messenger of God, allow me to behead this hypocrite; he has been treacherous to God, His Messenger and fellow Muslims." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "This man has participated in the battle of Badr. You may not know, O Umar, maybe God has pardoned all of the misdeeds of the fighters at Badr after noting their conduct there." (This report has been narrarted in different wordings in various narrations and some versions state "God may have forgiven them" or "He may forgive them" or "He will forgive them.") This brought tears to Umar's eyes and he exclaimed: "God and His Messenger know better." This is the summary of many reports on this issue as narrated by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Ahmad, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasā ́ī, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Hishām, Ibn Hibban and Ibn Abī Ḥātim. Of these, the most reliable report is that of 'Ali which is narrated by his secretary, Ubaydullah ibn Abī Rāfi', which has been related by 'Ali's grandson, Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah. No report, however, specifies that Hatib was pardoned in view of his defence but, at the same time, no source indicates that he was punished in any way. The consensus view among Muslim scholars therefore is that Hatib's plea was accepted and he was pardoned.

2. Although what has been said up to here and what follows in this regard was revealed about God, the passages do not focus only on Him. Rather, He teaches this lesson for ever and perpetually: in the encounter between the forces of unbelief and Islam, whereby some Muslims are persecuted, no one should resort to any action for whatever reason or consideration which may hurt the interest of Islam and support unbelief. It is contrary to a person's profession of faith to act, out of any motive or reason, in a way that is detrimental to the interests of Islam and beneficial to the interests of disbelief, when there is a conflict between Islam and disbelief and some people adopt a hostile attitude towards the Muslims just because they are Muslim. To behave in such a way is contrary to the spirit of faith. It does not befit the believer to take such an action for his own personal interest even if he is not hostile to Islam and does not have any evil motive behind his action. Whoever does so has strayed from the straight path.

3. This allusion is to Ḥāṭib ibn Abi Balta ‘ah who wrote this letter to ensure that members of his family (his mother, brother and children) in Makkah remain safe in the event of war. It was, therefore, pointed out: "On the Day of Resurrection neither your blood ties nor your own offspring will be of avail to you." For no one will dare say at the grand assembly that his father or son or brother had committed an evil deed for his sake and, hence, he should be punished in their place. On the Day of Resurrection, everyone will be concerned about himself and everyone will be faced with the ordeal of escaping the horrible consequences of his misconduct. Given this, no one will even think of owning someone's evil actions or facing its consequences. This truth is stated at several places in the Qur'ān:

- Although the culprits will be within the sight of one another, the defiant unbeliever will wish ardently he could ransom himself from the torment of that Day by offering his children, and his spouse and his brother, and his kinsfolk who had stood by him and all persons of the earth, if only he could thus save himself.

(Surah al-Ma'arij, 70: 11-14)

- On the Day when each man shall flee from his brother, and his mother and his father; and his wife and his children. On that Day each will be occupied with his own business, making him oblivious of all save himself.

(Surah 'Abasa, 80: 34-37)

4. This means that all worldly relationships, ties and bonds of friendship will be void in the Hereafter and people will not be judged as groups, parties or families, every person having to present himself individually and render his own account in his individual capacity. Therefore, no one in the world should commit a wrong for the sake of a relationship, friendship or fraternity, for he will himself have to face the harmful consequences of his actions in the Hereafter and no one shall share his personal responsibility.

5. Hatib's case, whose story we have recounted above along with the relevant Qur'ānic verses revealed about the incident, lead to the following conclusions:

1. Irrespective of his motive, Ḥātib's action was unmistakably a case of espionage. Moreover, it involved something very serious and sensitive at a critical juncture for the enemy was about to be alerted before, the attack took place. The person concerned could not have pleaded for any benefit of doubt because the letter written in his own handwriting was intercepted and no further proof of guilt was required. It was a period of wartime hostility, not peace. Yet, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not imprison Ḥatib without first giving him an opportunity to defend himself. He was given this opportunity in public, not in any confined space but in the open. This establishes strongly that Islam does not approve of such laws which authorise officials to arrest someone solely on the basis of suspicion or on the basis of knowledge possessed by them. Islam also does not recognise the method of trying people secretly or on camera.

2. Hatib was not only a Muhajir but also someone who took part in the battle of Badr and his participation in that battle bestowed on him a distinguished place among the Companions. Yet, he was guilty of committing a serious crime. Accordingly, God takes him to task very seriously in the above quoted verses of the Qur'ān.

His case also features at length in the Ḥadīth collections. There is hardly any Qur'an commentator who has not made a reference to it. It is one of the many evidences that prove that the Companions were not infallible. Being human, they were liable to errors and they did indeed commit some errors. God and His Messenger have no doubt taught us to respect them. Yet, this teaching does not forbid us from mentioning their lapses for, had this been something forbidden, God would not have recorded it in the Qur'ān nor would have the Companions, the successors as well as Qur'an and Ḥadīth scholars related their details in their works.

3. Umar's response to Hatib's case was based on prima facie evidence. His contention was that Hatib's action was a plain betrayal of God, His Messenger and the Muslims and, hence, Ḥāṭib was like a hypocrite and deserved the death penalty. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) rejected this viewpoint and explained the Shari'ah position that one is not to be judged on the basis of prima facie evidence alone. The accused's past career, overall conduct and circumstances had to be taken into consideration too. The case is undoubtedly one of espionage, but did the attitude of Ḥatib towards Islam and the followers of Islam until then indicate that he could do such a thing with the intention of betraying God, His Messenger and the Muslims? He was one of those who had migrated for the sake of Islam. If he were not sincere to Islam, would he have been able to make such a great sacrifice? Again, prompted by his deep faith, he risked his life at the battle of Badr when he was confronted with an army which was three times stronger and better equipped than the Muslim army. Can such a person's sincerity be doubted? Or could his action be taken as that of someone who was inclined towards the unbelieving Quraysh? He told the plain truth when he said that his family in Makkah did not have any protection from any tribe or clan there, whereas the families of other Muhajirun were protected. Thus, in order to safeguard his children from the unbelievers' persecution in the forthcoming war, he had taken this action. It was on record that he did not have any tribal support in Makkah and his family was already settled there. Hence, his defence could not be dismissed as false while it was possible to dismiss the opinion that his real motive was treachery and there was no genuine reason behind his action. Of course, such an action is not lawful even for a sincere Muslim with good intentions who thought he should inform the enemies of the war plan in order to protect his personal interests. Yet, there is a big difference between a sincere Muslim's lapse and a hypocrite's treachery and an identical punishment could not be meted out on both in view of the nature of their actions. So the Prophet's judgement rested on these considerations, which was endorsed by the above verses of Surah al-Mumtahinah. On studying these three verses closely, it is evident that the Qur'ān had certainly reprimanded Ḥāṭib. However, this reproach is directed at a believer and not at a hypocrite. Furthermore, the Qur'an does not prescribe any financial or corporal punishment for him. Rather, he is spared, though he was strongly reproached publicly for his misconduct. It means that, in a Muslim society, even a blot on the honour of a guilty believer and his falling into disrepute constitute a very severe punishment.

4. This is regarding the excellence of the Companions who had participated in the battle of Badr and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) remarked: "You may not know, Allah might have looked favourably at the people of Badr and said: Do as you please, I have forgiven you." "What do you know? God could pardon all of them, having observed their conduct and let them do whatever they are to do." This does not mean that these Companions of Badr were free to do whatever they wished, including indulgence in sin and crime. They were not assured of their deliverance in advance. This was not the Prophet's intent nor was his remark construed by any Companion as pointing to this. The Companions never understood it this way nor did any Companion who participated in Badr think he was free to commit any sin after hearing the good news. Moreover, the Shari'ah never made any rule to the effect that, if a Companion of Badr committed a sin, he would not be punished for it. As a matter of fact, if one considers carefully the circumstances under which this was said and the words that the Prophet used on this occasion, one can clearly understand the meaning of what he said about them. In view of this achievement, God could forgive all their sins, past and present. In view of God's boundless mercy and their noble deeds, the above could not be ruled out. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) advised that a Companion who had participated in the battle of Badr should not be suspected and charged with hypocrisy or treachery. Rather, his defence statement should be accepted at face value.

5. It emerges from both the Qur'an and the Prophet's sayings that a Muslim's spying for the disbelievers is not a conclusive evidence that he has become an apostate devoid of faith, or a hypocrite.

Such a decision may be taken on the basis of other pieces of internal evidence and proof, otherwise taken by itself it is only a crime and not a sign of disbelief.

6. It is also clear from these Qur'ānic verses that it is not permissible for a Muslim to spy for the disbelievers in any condition whatsoever, even if his own life and property, or even his near and dear ones, are in serious danger.

7. When 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) sought the Prophet's permission to kill Ḥāṭib on the charge of espionage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not refuse to give him permission on the ground that this crime does not entail a capital punishment. Rather, he turned down the request on the ground that Ḥāṭib was a sincere Companion who had participated in the battle of Badr and, for this, he should be spared. Furthermore, Ḥāṭib's defence was correct in that he did what he did not in order to benefit the disbelievers but to rescue his family members who were in a seriously difficult situation. From this, some jurists inferred that the general rule for a Muslim who spies for the enemies is that he is liable to capital punishment, except that there may also be other forms of reprimand after presenting compelling and weighty reasons for a lighter punishment or he may even be spared punishment altogether. However, there is some disagreement among the jurists on this issue. Imām Shāfi‘ī and some other jurists insist that Islamic penal law is applicable to the Muslim who spies for the enemies but it is not allowed to kill him. According to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Awzā ī, the Muslim who spies for the enemies is liable to corporal punishment and long term imprisonment. Imām Mālik's opinion is that the Muslim who spies for the enemies should be put to death. However, the Māliki jurists have divergent views on this issue. Al-Ashhab is of the view that the head of state has wide discretion regarding this matter and, depending on circumstances of both the crime and the culprit, he may decide according to his own ijtihad (independent judgement). According to a report, Imām Mālik and Ibn al-Qāsim endorse this view. However, Ibn al-Mājishūn and 'Abd al-Malik ibn Ḥabib are of the opinion that, if the culprit is a professional spy, then he is to be executed. Ibn Wahb prefers capital punishment for the spy and, yet, he makes an allowance for the spy who repents, as he thinks the latter should be pardoned. Saḥnun says that it is difficult to ascertain whether or not a spy's repentance is genuine and, therefore, it is better to execute him. This view is also supported by Ibn al-Qāsim. Al-Aṣbagh maintains that a belligerent spy is punished with death but a Muslim or dhimmi spy should be given corporal punishment, rather than the death sentence, provided he does not openly help the enemies against the Muslims (Ibn al-'Arabi, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān; 'Umdat al-Qārī and Fath al-Bārī). 8. It also emerges from the above cited ḥadīth that, as part of investigating a crime, both men and women could be made to undress if need be. Although 'Ali, al-Zubayr and al-Miqdād did not undress that woman, they had threatened her to do so if she refused to hand over the letter. Had this not been a permissible act, these three outstanding Companions would not have threatened her to do it. It is logical that they must have reported to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) all that had happened upon their return. Had the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) expressed his displeasure, it would have certainly been recorded in the Hadith corpus and this explains why the jurists have held this to be permissible ('Umdat al-Qārī).

6. That is, the believers renounce them; they do not consider them or their religious faith to be in the right. One's belief in Allah inevitably requires that one disbelieves in the Taghut: "He who rejects the evil ones and believes in Allah has indeed taken hold of the firm, unbreakable handle" (Surah al-Baqarah, 2: 256).

7. In other words, there is an excellent example in the conduct of Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) who disavowed his pagan people and broke off connections with them because they disbelieved (kāfir) and associated others with God in His divinity (mushrik). This deserves to be emulated. At the same time, one action by the Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) does not merit emulation; namely, his proinise to pray for his parents' forgiveness which he later fulfilled. For "Believers should not have any such love and sympathy for the disbelievers." For God clearly lays it down: "It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to ask for the forgiveness of those who associate others with God in His Divinity even if they be near of kin" (Surah al-Tawbah, 9: 113). These non-Muslims can cite the Prophet Abraham's example when he prayed for the forgiveness of his relatives. As for why the Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) did so and whether or not he fulfilled his promise, one gets a complete account in the Qur'ān. When the father of Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) expelled him, he said upon leaving: "Peace be upon you. I shall seek pardon for you from my Lord" (Surah Maryam, 19: 47). In view of this promise, he prayed for his father as is recorded in the Qur'an twice: (1) "Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents and the believers on the Day when the Reckoning will take place" (Surah Ibrāhīm, 14: 41); (2) "And forgive my father for he is among those who strayed, and disgrace me not on the Day when people will be raised to life" · (Surah al-Shu'arā', 26: 86-87). Later, when he realised that his father, for whose forgiveness he prayed, was an unbeliever, he disavowed and severed all ties of love and sympathy with him: "And Abraham's prayer for the forgiveness of his father was only because of a promise which he had made to him. Then, when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of God, he disassociated himself from him, surely Abraham was most tender- hearted, God-fearing, forbearing" (Surah al-Tawbah, 9: 114).

The salient point that emerges on studying these verses is that the actions of Prophets that one should emulated are only those that they persistently kept doing until the end. As for those actions which they had recanted at a later stage, those which God did not let them do, or those which were forbidden later on by the Shari'ah, these are not to be emulated and one cannot cite such actions to justify oneself.

One is faced here with another nagging question which can confuse the human mind. In the above quoted Qur'ānic verses, the act of Prophet Abraham that Allah exempted from being emulated has two parts: (1) He told his father that he will pray for his forgiveness; and (2) He had clarified that it was not within his power to secure God's forgiveness for him. Not to emulate the first part of his action is fairly clear, but why is the second part not to be emulated when it is perfectly true and valid. The reason for this is that the action of Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) is not within his power to do, which implies that he would do it if it was possible for him to do so. This strongly underscores his attachment and sincerity with that person. Therefore, the second part of Prophet Abraham's action is to be avoided as well, for though it is something true in principle, it is not within a Prophet's power to secure God's forgiveness for someone else. In his Rūḥ al- Ma'ānī, al-Älūsï has given the same response to this question.

8. There are several ways in which the believers can become a trial (fitnah) for the unbelievers. This is something from which every believer should seek refuge from Allah. (1) For example, the unbelievers might establish their dominion over the believers and then claim this to be the proof of their being right and the believers being wrong. Otherwise, how would it be possible to defeat the believers in spite of having Allah's support on their side? The second scenario is that (2) they may persecute the believers to an unbearable extent with the result that the believers may yield to them and be ready to compromise their religion and morality. This would subject the believers to public ridicule and provide the disbelievers with an opportunity to humiliate religion and its adherent. (3) The believers, despite being standard-bearers of the true faith, may lose their moral excellence. As a consequence, people may see the same flaws in their character and activities that are commonly found in society and rooted in pre-Islamic ignorance. This might provide the disbelievers with an opportunity to say that His faith (dīn) cannot claim an elevated place over their beliefs (For further details see: Tafhīm al- Qur'ān, vol. 2, Sūrah Yūnus, 10: n. 83).

9. The person who is hopeful to encounter God one day and looks forward that He treats him benevolently and helps him attain success in the Hereafter.

10. God does not need those who claim to be believers while maintaining, at the same time, friendship with His enemies. God is eternal and His Glory does not need their acknowledgement that He is God. He is most praiseworthy by Himself and does not depend on their praising and glorifying for Him to be so. If they affirm faith in Him, it does not benefit Him at all as their faith is for their own benefit. But they cannot benefit properly from their faith unless, like Prophet Abraham (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions, they sever their ties of love and friendship with the enemies of God.

11. Although the above verses, in which the Muslims were exhorted to sever their ties with their unbelieving relatives, were followed by the Muslims with great patience, God knew how hard it was for them to cut off their relations with their own parents, brothers, sisters and close relatives and how it must have been tormenting their souls. For this reason, Allah the Almighty assured them that it will not be long before these same relatives will embrace Islam. When this happens, the strained relations that once prevailed between the Muslims and their unbelieving relatives would be replaced by amity and friendship. When the above observation was made, nobody could understand how such an eventuality could happen. However, within only a few weeks following the revelation of these verses, Makkah was conquered and the people of Quraysh began to enter the fold of Islam in large numbers. Thus, the Muslims witnessed with their own eyes what they had been foretold.

12. This may raise some doubt in some minds that, while it is fine to treat non-combatant unbelievers in this manner, should justice not to be applied on combatant unbelievers? Let it be clear that the above verse refers to justice in a specific sense. What it means is that justice demands that the Muslims should not be hostile to those who have not been hostile to them. Evidently, it is not fair for the Muslims to treat their enemies and non-enemies alike. Muslims had every right to be severe with those who opposed them, drove them out of their homes and thereafter pursued them with hostility only because they were Muslims. As far those who did not persecute the Muslims, fairness requires that the Muslims, too, should treat them well and give them in full measure their rights which are due to kinship or other kinds of relationship.

13. The above directive given, before these verses ended, to sever ties with the unbelievers could give rise to the misperception that this is given on account of their disbelief. The above verses, however, clarify that this is not owing to their unbelief but on account of their hostility towards Islam and the Muslims. The Muslims therefore should distinguish between the disbelievers who are their enemies and those who are not. They should treat graciously those disbelievers who do not harm them at all, which is illustrated in the best manners by the following report regarding Asma', the daughter of Abu Bakr and her unbelieving mother. The latter, Qutaylah bint 'Abd al-'Uzzah, was the wife of Abu Bakr and she was a disbeliever who stayed back in Makkah after the Hijrah. Asma' was her daughter. After the Ḥudaybiyah peace treaty, when travel between Makkah and Madīnah was resumed, she went to Madinah to visit her daughter, Asma', and brought some gifts for her. Asma' relates this event thus: "I went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and asked him whether or not I should meet my mother and whether or not I can treat her well in view of my close relationship with her." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) directed me to maintain ties of kinship with her" (Musnad of Imām Ahmad, al-Bukhārī and Muslim). 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Asmā's son, gives more details and says that Asmā' had initially refused to meet her mother. She let her visit her only after getting permission from God and His Messenger (Musnad of Imām Aḥmad, Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Ḥātim). It is therefore quite evident from the above that it is perfectly fine for a Muslim to serve his unbelieving parents and to help his unbelieving brothers, sisters and relatives, provided they are not hostile to Islam. Likewise, money from charity can be spent on the poor dhimmis (al- Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān and Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī).

14. The background to this Qur'ānic command is the migration of the Muslims after the Hudaybiyah treaty. Among the Muslim women, the first to arrive was Umm Kulthūm bint 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayṭ and the unbelievers demanded her return in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. Umm Kulthūm's two brothers, al-Walid ibn 'Uqbah and Umārah ibn Uqbah, went to Madīnah to take her back. It is important here to resolve an issue regarding the wordings of ḥadīths. The different narrations about the provisions of the Ḥudaybiyah treaty do not relate the exact wording of the treaty. Some narrations indicate that it was stated in the treaty that "Whoever from our side reaches us, we will not return him but if somebody reaches you from among us you will have to return him." Other narrations cite this: "Whoever comes to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from among the Prophet's Companions, without the permission of the guardian (wali), the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) will repatriate him." Another narration asserts: "If anybody from the tribe of Quraysh joins Muhammad without his guardian's permission, he will be returned to the Quraysh." It emerges from these different narrations that the provisions of the treaty were not recorded verbatim.

Rather, the narrators paraphrased these in their own words. In view of the large number of these narrations, the scholars of the Qur'ān and Hadith interpret these in the sense that the treaty was common and applicable to both men and women and, therefore, women had also to be repatriated. However, when they became aware of the Divine Command that believing women are not to be repatriated, some scholars have interpreted that God decided to change the import of the treaty. However, this version is not something that could be easily accepted as something of no importance. If the treaty were applicable to both men and women, how could it be permissible for one party to alter it on its own. If that has been the case, how strange it is that the Quraysh did not protest at all. They were ever ready to attack the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Muslims for each and every act of theirs. Had they realised that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had openly violated the treaty, they would have raised a huge hue and cry. However, there is no report on record indicating their disagreement over the above Qur'anic command. If this issue had been studied from this angle, the best way out would have been to examine the text and the provision of the treaty. Some scholars did not pay attention to this. Even when some of them, such as Qādī Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi, studied this issue, he did not hesitate to say that God had silenced the Quraysh's tongue in a miraculous way on this particular occasion. It is quite strange how this weak interpretation satisfied the mind of these people.

The fact is that the provisions of the peace treaty had been initiated by the disbelieving Quraysh and not by the Muslims. Their representative, Suhayl ibn 'Amr included in the treaty the following words: "If a man from us (rajul) comes to you, even if he follows your religion, you will return him to us." These wordings of the treaty are narrated in al- Bukhārī's Kitāb al-Shurūț, Bāb al-Shurūṭ fi al Jihād wa'l-Muṣālaḥah, on the authority of a strong chain of narrators. It is likely that Suhayl may have used the word rajul (man) in the general sense but this was his personal view. The expression recorded in the treaty was rajul which is used in Arabic for a man. That is why when the brothers of Umm Kulthūm bint 'Uqbah went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for her return, according to Imām al-Zuhrī, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused to return her back on the ground that the provision of the treaty covered only men, not women (Ibn al-'Arabī, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān and Imām al-Rāzī, al-Tafsir al-Kabīr). Until that time, even the Quraysh were under the misperception that the treaty applied to all emigrants be they men or women. They were left speechless when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) pointed to them the wordings of the treaty and, hence, they had no other option but to resign themselves to the decision of the Prophet.

The provision of this treaty entitled the Muslims to refuse the return of any woman who migrated from Makkah to Madīnah, irrespective of the purpose of her migration. Islam was, however, concerned only about the security of believing women. It was not the objective to turn Madīnah into a refuge for all fleeing women. God therefore commanded that those migrant women who claimed to be believers be examined satisfactorily to ensure that they are genuine believers. Once that was ascertained, they should not be returned back. Accordingly, the process that was put in place in deference to the Divine Directive was that migrant women were asked whether they believe in God's Oneness and the Prophet's Messengership and whether they had emigrated only for the sake of Allah and His Messenger. This was in order to eliminate the possibility of fleeing from their homes because of any quarrel with their husbands or because their lovers were in Madīnah or due to some other worldly motives. Only those women who gave satisfactory answers to the above questions were allowed to stay in Madīnah while the others were returned back (Ibn Jarīr on the authority of Ibn 'Abbās, Qatādah, Mujahid, 'Ikrimah and Ibn Zayd.)

The verse under study lays down a standing principle regarding the law of evidence. It is amplified by the process prescribed by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for enforcing this law. This verse spells out three points: (1) examine the faith of the emigrating women who present themselves as believers; (2) God alone knows the truth of their faith because the Muslims have no means of ascertaining the genu- ineness of their declaration of faith; (3) if it emerges from their examination that they are believers, then they should not be returned back to the disbelievers. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had prescribed the following procedure for verifying their faith: the statements of these women were taken under oath; they were further questioned in order to ensure that faith alone had prompted them to emigrate to the exclusion of any other motives. One thus learns from the above that the court does not need to have real facts to adjudge a case. It may rely only on the information provided by evidence. Another norm that is learnt here is that one's oath is to be trusted unless it is nullified by circumstantial evidence. Another standing principle is that one should accept a person's statement about his faith and belief. One should not probe any further evidence to prove that his statement is true or not, unless one knows something else which patently contradicts his statement. Moreover, one cannot ascertain anyone's personal circumstances and, hence, his statement should be accepted and relied upon. For example, a woman's statement about her menses and ritual purification will be accepted to decide her divorce and other issues related to the waiting period, whether she is telling the truth or lying. In deference of this norm, such reports are accepted by Hadith scholars to be prima facie truthful, unless there are other circumstances that point to the contrary.

15. The meaning of the verse is that the dowry returned by their unbelieving husbands will not be accepted as a bridal due for these women if they remarry. Rather, if any Muslim wants to marry any of these women, he should pay her the bridal due, then solemnize the marriage.

16. This verse lays down four very important rulings related to Muslim and international family laws.

1. A woman who embraces Islam is no longer lawful for her unbelieving husband nor is her unbelieving husband lawful for her.

2. If a married woman embraces Islam and migrates from the land of the disbelievers (dār al-kufr) to the land of Islam (dār al-Islām), her marriage is annulled automatically. If any Muslim desires to marry her he can do so after paying her bridal dower (mahr).

3. A man who embraces Islam is not allowed to retain his wife in wedlock if she prefers to remain an infidel.

4. When there are relations of peace between the abode of disbelief (dār al-kufr) and the abode of Islam (dār al-Islām), the Islamic government should try to settle the question of the return of dowries with non-Muslim governments. The dowers of women married to disbelievers who embrace Islam and migrate to the land of Islam as Muslims should be returned on behalf of the Muslims and the dower money of the disbelieving wives of Muslims who remain in the land of unbelief (dār al-kufr) should be returned on behalf of the disbelievers.

The historical circumstance of these commands is that there were many such men in the early days of Islam who embraced Islam whose wives did not do so. Likewise, there were many women who entered the fold of Islam whose husbands did not accept Islam. Even the Prophet's daughter, Zaynab, had an unbelieving husband, Abu'l-'Āṣ, who remained non-Muslim for several years. In the early period there was no command in place that outlawed the marriage of a pagan husband with a Muslim woman or of a polytheistic wife with a Muslim husband. Hence, marital ties between Muslims and pagans continued. Even several years after the Hijrah, the situation was such that many women migrated to Madīnah after accepting Islam whereas their non-believing husbands remained behind in the abode of disbelief. Likewise, many Muslim men migrated while their unbelieving wives remained in the abode of kufr (disbelief). Notwithstanding this situation, their marriage contract remained intact. This, however, caused several complications particularly for the women. This is because men could re-marry but these women could not re-marry until their marriage with their former husbands was dissolved. When these verses were revealed after the treaty of Hudaybiyah, they put an end to the marriage contracts between the Muslims and the unbelievers and polytheists. These verses laid down a permanent and explicit law on this issue for the future. Muslim jurists have codified this law under the following four broad headings: (1) a situation in which the húsband and wife are in the land of Islam and one of them accepts Islam and the other remains an infidel (kāfir); (2) while the husband and wife are in the land of unbelief (dār al- kufr), one of them accepts Islam whereas the other remains in a state of disbelief; (3) the husband or wife accepts Islam and migrates to the land of Islam while the other continues living as a disbeliever in the land of disbelief; (4) the case whereby the husband or wife becomes an apostate. The juristic rulings regarding all of the above four cases are separately described below:

1. In the first case, the husband has accepted Islam and his wife remains an infidel, a Christian or Jewess (ahl al-kitāb), and he adheres to his faith, in which case their marriage remains unaffected because it is lawful for a Muslim man to have a wife who is a follower of earlier scriptures. All the jurists unanimously agree on this point. However, if the wife is not a follower of earlier Books and she adheres to her faith, the Ḥanafi stance is that the wife would be asked to accept Islam. If she accepts it, their marriage remains intact; but if she refuses, separation would be effected between the couple. If the couple have had conjungal relations, the woman will be entitled to receive a dower (mahr). If they have not had any conjugal relations, then she is not entitled to receive a dower, their separation having taken place on account of her refusal (to accept Islam) (al-Mabsūṭ, al-Hidayah and Fath al-Qadir). According to Imām Shafi'i and Imam Ahmad, if the couple did not have any conjugal relations, as soon as the husband embraces Islam, the woman becomes out of the marital bond. If they had enjoyed conjugal relations, the woman remains within wedlock until the elapse of three menses. If within this period she willingly accepts Islam, their marriage remains intact. Otherwise, their marriage will come to an end when her third monthly cycle is over. Imām Shafi'i further points out that, since Islam has guaranteed non-interference in matters concerning the dhimmis' religion, it is unfair to ask her to embrace Islam. However, this would seem a weak argument for it would be a case of interference in the faith of the dhimmi woman if she was compelled to accept Islam. However, it is not necessarily an instance of interference if she is given an opportunity to accept Islam and keep her marriage instead of facing separation. There was a precedent of this nature during the reign of Caliph ‘Alī. A Magian (majūsī) landlord from Iraq accepted Islam whereas his wife clung to disbelief. ‘Ali invited her to embrace Islam and when she refused, he separated the couple (al-Mabsūṭ). Imām Mālik was of the opinion that, if the marriage has not been comsummated, then as soon as the man accepts Islam, his unbelieving wife is immediately separated from him. But if the marriage has been consummated, then she will be given a choice to accept Islam, and if she refuses to accept it, she would be separated from her husband (Ibn Qudāmah, al- Mughni).

The Hanafi position about the woman who accepts Islam while her husband remains an infidel, whether or not he is of the people of the Book (ahl al-kitāb), and whether or not the marriage has been consummated, is that the husband will be given the choice of accepting Islam. If he does accept it, he keeps his wife. If he refuses, the Qāḍī will separate the two. During this period, if the husband does not refuse to accept Islam, the woman will remain his wife but he cannot have conjugal relations with her. If the husband refuses to accept Islam, it will be a case of an irrevocable divorce. If the marriage has not been consummated, then the woman will be entitled to have half of the dower money; and if it has been consummated, then she will get the dower in full as well as maintenance during her waiting period ('Iddah) (al-Mabsūṭ, al-Hidayah and Fath al-Qadīr). For Imām Shāfi ī, once the woman accepts Islam, her marriage will be annulled if it has not been consummated. If the marriage has been consummated, she remains in wedlock until the end of her waiting period. If her husband accepts Islam during this period, their marriage will remain intact. Otherwise, separation will follow at the end of the waiting period. The above position of Imām Shafi'i covers both the husband and wife. He does not approve that the choice of Islam be presented before either of them. However, this stance is very weak. During the reign of the Caliph 'Umar, there were several similar incidents whereby the wife accepted Islam but her husband refused to do so upon being asked, and the couples were separated. For example, there was the case of a Christian's wife from the Banu Taghlib tribe who was brought to 'Umar's notice. 'Umar told her husband: "Either accept Islam or I will separate the two of you." When he refused to accept Islam, he separated them. Another case relates to the wife of a landlord from Bahz al-Malik who had accepted Islam and was brought before him. In this case, too, he ordered that the husband be given a choice to accept Islam and, if he does so, it was well and good. Otherwise, separation would be effected between them.

The Companions (ṣaḥābah) witnessed these incidents and did not express any objection or disagreement vis-à-vis this ruling (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān; al-Mabsuṭ and Fath al-Qadīr). Imām Malik is of the view that if a woman embraces Islam before the consummation of her marriage, her husband will be given the choice to accept Islam. If he does embrace Islam, then there is no problem. Otherwise, separation should be effected forthwith. If a woman accepts Islam after having conjugal relations with her husband, she has to wait until the expiry of her waiting period ('iddah). If her husband accepts Islam during that period, their marriage remains intact, otherwise separation will take effect as soon as the waiting period expires. In one report, Imām Aḥmad endorses Imām Shāfi 'T's stance. He is, however, credited with another view that the difference in the religion of the couple calls for an immediate separation between them, whether or not conjugal relations have taken place (al-Mughni).

2. If a woman accepts Islam while she is in a land of unbelief (dār al-kufr) and her husband clings to his unbelief, or he accepts Islam while his wife, who is neither a Jew nor a Christian (but is follower of a non-revealed religion), remains an infidel, the Ḥanafi viewpoint is that separation will not be effected until she has three monthly cycles, whether or not they had conjugal relations. If she is a non-menstruating woman, a period of three months will be taken into account. If during this period, the other spouse also converts to Islam, their marriage will remain valid. Otherwise separation will come into force at the expiry of her waiting period ('iddah). Imam Shafi'i, however, makes a distinction on the basis of whether or not conjugal relationship has taken place between the couple. According to him, if there is no conjugal relation between the two, then separation between the couple will come into force immediately on the ground of the difference of religion between the spouses. And if the difference of religion has occurred after conjugal relation between them, then the marriage will remain valid until the end of the wife's waiting period. If in the meantime the other spouse does not accept Islam during this period, their marriage will be dissolved as soon as the waiting period comes to an end (al-Mabsūṭ, Fatḥ al-Qadīr and al- Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān).

3. In the case whereby there is a difference in religion between the spouses and also a separation of abodes between them, i.e one of them remains in the land of unbelief (dār al-kufr) and the other migrates to the land of Islam (dār al-Islām), the Ḥanafi opinion is that their marriage is automatically dissolved. If the migrating spouse is the woman, she is entitled to re-marry immediately and there is no waiting period for her to observe. However, her new husband will have to abstain from sexual intercourse with her until she has one cycle of menses; and if she is pregnant, she has to wait for one monthly cycle for ensuring the purity of her womb before the husband can have conjugal relations with her. He may marry her if she is already pregnant, but he will have to defer conjugal relations with her until she delivers. Imām Abū Yusuf and Imām Muḥammad have slightly differed from Imām Abū Ḥanifah on this issue, insisting that the waiting period is mandatory for the woman. Likewise, she cannot contract a new marriage before her delivery if she is pregnant (al-Mabsūț, al- Hidayah and al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qur'an). In the opinion of Imām Shāfi 'ī, Imām Aḥmad and Imām Mālik, the change in residence has no bearing on this issue. The deciding factor is the change in religion. Once this change takes place between the spouses, the same rulings will apply, even if the couple happen to be in the abode of Islam (al-Mughni). Regarding the Muslim woman who migrates, Imām Shāfi 'ī is of the opinion that if she has a quarrel with her infidel husband and migrates in order to end her marriage contract, then separation will come into effect on the basis of the separation of abode (ikhtilaf al-där) (al-Mabsuț and al-Hidayah).

But a careful consideration of the Qur'anic verse under discussion clearly shows that, in this matter, the soundest opinion is the one that Imām Abū Ḥanifah has expressed. God has revealed this verse regarding the migrant, believing women. The Qur'an declares that they are no longer lawful for their pagan husbands whom they have left behind in the abode of unbelief (dār al-kufr). Moreover, the Qur'an allows the Muslims of the Islamic state to marry them after paying their dowers. On the other hand, the migrant Muslims have been enjoined not to keep in wedlock those of their pagan wives who were left in the abode of unbelief. Moreover, they should demand the disbelievers to return the dowers they had given to those women. Obviously, these commands did not come only due to the difference in religion. The difference of abode is what has given these injunctions this particular form. If after migration, the marriages of Muslim women with their pagan husbands were

not dissolved, how could the Muslims of the Islamic state be permitted to marry them after paying their dowers but without the observance of the waiting period? Likewise, even if after the revelation of the command "and you also should not hold back non- believing women in marriage", the pagan wives of Muslim migrants remained the latter's wives, and they also would have been commanded to divorce them. But there is no reference here to this either. It is no doubt true that after the revelation of the verse "You should not hold back unbelieving women in marriage," Umar, Ṭalḥah and other Muslim emigrants went on to divorce their wives. But, this is no proof that it was mandatory for them to do so and the severing of their marital relationships with those wives was contingent on their pronouncing divorce on them. Had they not pronounced the divorce, those wives would have remained their legal wives.

In response to this, three events from the Prophet's era are quoted as precedents which are taken as proof that, even after the revelation of these verses, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) upheld the marriage contracts between believing and non-believing spouses, notwithstanding the separation of abodes. The first event took place shortly before the conquest of Makkah when Abū Sufyān met the Muslim army at Marr al-Zahran, presently known as Wādī Fāțimah, and accepted Islam there while his wife Hind, was still a pagan in Makkah. After the conquest of Makkah, Hind also accepted Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) upheld their previous marriage and did not renew it. The second event happened after the conquest of Makkah when 'Ikrimah ibn Abī Jahl and Ḥakim Ibn Ḥizām fled from Makkah and, in their absence, their wives accepted Islam. These wives secured the Prophet's pardon and protection for their husbands and brought them to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Both of them therefore accepted Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) upheld their marriages. The third event relates to the Prophet's own daughter, Zaynab, who migrated to Madīnah while her husband Abū'l-'Āṣ stayed back in Makkah as an infidel. It is reported in the Musnad of Imām Aḥmad as well as by Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbās that he later accepted Islam in 8 AH when he went to Madīnah. Without renewing his marriage to Zaynab, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) let them continue their wedlock. The first two of these events cited above do not come under the definition of the difference of abode. For the difference of abode does not mean a person's temporarily leaving one place for another, or his fleeing to another place. But the difference takes place only in a case whereby a person migrates from one place and settles down in another place. In today's parlance it involves a change in the nationality of the couple. As for the event relating to Zaynab's case, there are two traditions. One related on the authority of Ibn 'Abbās which has been referred to above while the other is related from 'Abdullah Ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Aṣ which is narrated by Imām Aḥmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Mājah. In the second tradition, it is stated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) allowed his daughter to remain as the wife of Abū'l-'Āṣ and gave her to him in marriage with a fresh dower. Owing to the divergence in these two narrations, the above does not serve as a precedent, which rules out the legal impact of the change of residence. Moreover, even if one accepts Ibn 'Abbas's report as sound, it still refutes their stance. For according to them, the change in the religion of a couple, after their having conjugal relations, means that their marriage lasts only until the elapse of the wife's three monthly cycles. If the other spouse embraces Islam in that period, their marriage continues, otherwise this bond ends immediately after the period of three menses is over. However, they refer in this context to Zaynab's case in which the change in the couple's religion had happened years before, Abu al-'As having embraced Islam six years after Zaynab's migration to Madinah, at least two years before the Qur'an had proclaimed that a Muslim woman is unlawful for a polytheist man.

4. The fourth issue is that of apostasy. One of its form is that the couple turn apostate at the same time, or one of them becomes an apostate and the other remains a Muslim.

When both husband and wife become apostates at the same time, the Shafi'is and Ḥanbalīs state that their marriage which was contracted according to Islam is immediately dissolved, if this had happened before having conjugal relations after the elapsing of the waiting period. The Ḥanafis, however, take a different view which is that, although according to common sense, their marriage should be dissolved, yet during the Caliph Abu Bakr's reign, when thousands of people had turned apostates and then again reverted to Islam, the Companions of the Prophet did not ask them to renew their marriages. Hence, one accepts this unanimous decision of the Companions and admits, contrary to common sense, that if both the husband and wife had become apostates together, their marriage is not dissolved (al-Mabsuț, Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, al-Fiqh 'Alā al-Madhāhib al-Arba'ah).

If the husband becomes an apostate and the wife remains a Muslim, according to the Ḥanafis and Mālikīs, the marriage is immediately dissolved, whether this happens before the consummation of marriage or after it. But the Shāfi is and Ḥanbalīs make a distinction in this connection between the two situations. If it happens before the consummation of marriage, the marriage is immediately dissolved, but if it happens after the consummation of marriage, it will continue until the end of the waiting period. In the meantime, if the husband reverts to Islam, the marriage will be upheld, otherwise it will be dissolved on the expiry of the waiting period, since he had become an apostate. In other words, the woman will not have to observe another waiting period. All the jurists of the four leading schools agree that, if this eventuality arises before the consummation of marriage, the woman would be entitled to half of the dower. And if it happens after the consummation of marriage, she will get the full dower.

And if it is the woman who becomes an apostate, the classical Ḥanafi edict (fatwā) is that, even in that situation, the marriage is immediately dissolved. However, at a later date, the scholars of Balkh and Samarqand gave the ruling that the apostacy of a woman does not lead to an immediate annulment of her marriage with a Muslim. By doing so, they sought to discourage women from resorting to apostasy just in order to get rid of their husbands. In this way such women will not opt for apostasy. The Mālikīs' ruling is almost identical. They hold that if a woman uses apostasy only as a pretext to secure her release from her husband, then separation will not come into effect. However, the Shafi'is and Ḥanbalīs affirm that the same ruling applies to the men and women who become apostates. If apostasy precedes the consummation of marriage, then marriage ends immediately. However, if it happens after the consummation of marriage, then marriage lasts until the end of the waiting period. If a husband embraces Islam during that period, the marriage contract remains intact. Otherwise, it will be deemed to have dissolved with immediate effect from the moment of apostasy. There is a consensus among the jurists on the point that, if a woman turns apostate before the consummation of her marriage, she is not entitled to get any dower. However, if she becomes an apostate after the consummation of marriage, she is entitled to receive her full dower (al-Mabsūṭ, Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, al-Mughni, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Madhāhib al-Arba'ah).

17. This contains two things which apply to both issues under discussion. One scenario is that the Muslims had a treaty with the disbelievers and wanted to settle the matter thus: "We shall return the dowers of those women who have emigrated to us and, by the same token, you will return the dowers of the pagan wives of the Muslims left on our side." But the disbelievers did not accept this offer. Accordingly, Imām al-Zuhrī explains that, in deference to the Divine Command, the Muslims became ready to return the dowers of the women who were retained by the polytheists in Makkah whereas the Makkan polytheists refused to return the dowers of the women who had emigrated to the Muslims in Madīnah. Thereupon, God commanded that the dowers of the emigrant women, which were to be returned to the pagans, be collected in Madinah instead of sending them to these polytheists and, from this collection, reimbursement had to be made to those whose dowers were due from the pagans according to what was due to them.

The second scenario is of the disbelievers who had no treaty with the Muslims. Several people from their territory had accepted Islam and migrated to the abode of Islam (dār al-Islām) while their disbelieving wives were left behind. Likewise, some women of that region also had accepted Islam and migrated to Madīnah, leaving their pagan husbands behind. For them, it was decreed that the matter should be settled in the abode of Islam itself. That is, as dowers were not returned by the disbelievers, no dowers should be returned to them. Instead, the dowers of the women who have emigrated to the abode of Islam would be paid to the persons whose wives had been left with the disbelievers.

But if the matter could not be settled equitably and the value of the dower due to the disbelieving wives of Muslims, who were left in the abode of disbelief, exceeded the value of the dower of the Muslim women who had emigrated, it was commanded that the difference be made up from the booty which the Muslims had secured from battles against the disbelievers. Ibn 'Abbās reports that, when someone's dower was outstanding, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to compensate his loss from the spoils of war (Ibn Jarīr). This stance is endorsed by 'Aṭā', Mujahid, al-Zuhrī, Masrūq, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha ‘ī, Qatadah, Muqatil and al-Daḥḥāk, all of whom subscribe to the view that those whose dowers are supposed to be paid by the disbelievers should be compensated from the spoils of war obtained from the enemy. That is, before the booty is distributed, the dowers of these people are paid first after which the distribution of the booty is made whereby these same people are given their equal shares along with the other soldiers. Some jurists hold the view that even the properties of fay' may be used for such compensation. However, this view is not shared by the majority of scholars.

18. As has been mentioned earlier, this verse was revealed some time before the conquest of Makkah. Thereafter, the Quraysh started coming to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in large numbers to pledge their oath of allegiance. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself took this oath from the men at the mount al-Safā. As for the women, he appointed 'Umar (may Allah be well pleased with him) to accept their oaths on his behalf. Through this oath, the women were asked to pledge that they would refrain from the things mentioned in this verse (Ibn Jarir on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Abi Hatim on the authority of Qatādah). Then, on his return to Madinah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked the Muslim women of Madīnah to gather at a house and he sent 'Umar to take their oaths (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Marduwayh, al-Bazzār and Ibn Ḥibbān on the authority of Umm 'Atiyyah al-Anṣāriyyah). On 'Ïd day, after delivering his address to men, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went to the women's section and, in his khutbah address to them, he recited the above verse and asked them to take their pledge that they would refrain from the things mentioned in this verse (al-Bukhārī on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas). Apart from these occasions, both individually and collectively, and at different times, women also went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and pledged their oaths of allegiance, as mentioned in several Ḥadith collections.

19. When the women pledged their allegiance in Makkah, Abū Sufyan's wife, Hind bint 'Utbah, sought a clarification from the Prophet, saying: "O Messenger of Allah! Abū Sufyān is rather stingy, is it a sin if I take something out of his wealth without his permission to meet my needs and those of my children?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "No [it is not a sin], you may take but do so in a fair manner." What he meant is that she should take only what is sufficient for her to meet her genuine needs (Ibn al-'Arabi, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān).

20. Included in it is abortion, whether it is of a legitimate or illegitimate foetus.

21. This implies two kinds of calumny: (1) that a woman accuses another woman of having an illicit sexual relation with someone and this is then spread among people; and (2) that a woman delivers a child by someone else other than her husband and make her husband believe that the child is his. This is a disease in some women who spread such news about others. Abū Dāwūd reports from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "A woman who plants into a family a child who does not actually belong to it, will have no connection with Allah; Allah will never enter her into Paradise."

22. Two significant legal points have been stated in this brief Qur'anic sentence:

1. That obedience, even to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), is restricted to "what is known to be good" (Innamā al-Ta'ah fi'l-Ma'ruf). Even though it is unthinkable that the Prophet would ever order anyone to do something reprehensible, one understands that no one in the world can be obeyed if he or she commands something which is outside the bounds of the Divine Law. It is evident from this that no one should obey anyone in defiance of God's law. For if obedience even to God's Messenger is contingent on its being limited to only things "known to be good", who else can claim that people should obey him unconditionally, such that all his commands, laws, rules or customs must necessarily be followed, even when they are opposed to God's law? The same point features in this ḥadīth: "There is no obedience in something which involves disobedience to God." Obedience is only limited to "what is good and right" (Muslim, Kitāb al-Imārah, 39; Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Jihad, 87; and al-Nasā'ī, Kitāb al-Bay 'ah, 34). Some well-known Muslim scholars have deduced the same message from this verse. 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam says: "God did not say that they should not disobey the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) [in an absolute way]. Rather, He says that they should not disobey him in what is known to be good (ma'ruf). Since God has qualified obedience even to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the above sense, how can any other person have the right to be obeyed in anything except what is known to be good" (Ibn Jarir).

Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ writes: "God knew well that His Prophet commands nothing but good, yet He placed the condition that obedience to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) be limited to only what is known to be good. This prevents one from taking the position that the rulers must be followed even in that which involves disobedience to God. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "Whoever obeys a created being in disobedience to the Creator, God makes the same created being empower him” (Aḥkām al-Qur'ān).

2. Al-Ālūsī says: "This Qur'anic command refutes the stance of those ignorant people who think that obedience of the ruler is absolutely necessary. God has restricted even the obedience to His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), saying that he is to be obeyed only in what is known to be good even though the Messenger never enjoins anything but that which is good. This serves as a warning to people that they should not obey anyone in any matter which entails disobedience to the Creator" (Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī). Thus, the above statement, is in fact the cornerstone of the rule of law in Islam. As a matter of principle, violating Islamic law is a crime and none is permitted to commit such a crime. The one who does so is a culprit, and whoever obeys a culprit's command is also a culprit. A subordinate cannot escape a punishment on the pretext that his superior officer has ordered him to commit something which is a crime in the eyes of the law.

This verse has also serious constitutional implications. After laying down five prohibitions, the present verse enjoins only one positive command, namely to obey the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in all things that are good. As far as evil is concerned, mention has been made of the main points in which women of the pre-Islamic period were generally involved, and they were asked to pledge refraining from them. As for good actions, they have not been mentioned here nor was any pledge taken regarding them. The only pledge that has been taken is that they obey the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in every good action that he enjoins. Now obviously, if good actions were restricted to only those specified by God Most High in the Qur'an, the pledge taken would have insisted that these women should not disobey God or any other Qur'ānic commands. However, they were asked not to disobey all that is known to be good which is commanded by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This automatically leads to the conclusion that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has been given vast powers to reform society. It is obligatory to obey all his commands, whether or not they are found in the Qur'ān.

While exercising this constitutional authority, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked these women to pledge that they would refrain from all those evils which were rife among the women of pre-Islamic Arab society. Likewise, as part of the pledge, he gave them several commands which have not been mentioned in the Qur'an. The following hadiths are helpful in this connection:

Ibn 'Abbas, Umm Salamah and Umm 'Atiyyah al-Anṣāriyyah reported that they were amongst those whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made to pledge not to lament the dead. Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Nasā'ī and Ibn Jarir have related these traditions. One may study the following Prophetic traditions in this connection:

Another report from Ibn 'Abbās informs that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) deputed 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) to take the pledge of some women, asking him to forbid them from wailing over the dead. In the pre-Islamic period, as part of lamenting the dead, women used to tear their clothes, scratch their faces, cut off their hair and bewail in a loud voice (Ibn Jarir).

Zayd ibn Aslam has reported that, as part of the above pledge, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade them from crying loudly over the dead, scratching their faces, tearing their garments, raising a hue and crying and mourning the dead by singing couplets (Ibn Jarīr). Ibn Abi Ḥātim and Ibn Jarīr narrated an identical report on the authority of a woman who was among those who pledged their oath of allegiance to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

According to Qatādah and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, one of the clauses of the pledge was that these women would not talk to unrelated men. Ibn 'Abbas's report, however, clarifies that these women were asked not to talk to unrelated men in private. Qatādah further clarifies that, upon hearing the Prophet's above directive, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf submitted: "O Messenger of Allah! At times we are not at home and if somebody comes to see us, what should we do then?" He replied: "This is not what I meant. It is not forbidden for a woman to tell the visitor that the master of the house is not at home." (These reports are on the authority of Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abi Ḥātim).

'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'Āṣ has related a report on the authority of Sayyidah Fāṭimah's maternal aunt, Umaymah bint Ruqayqah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had her pledge that she would not bewail over the dead nor display herself like the women of pre-Islamic paganism" (Musnad Aḥmad and Ibn Jarīr).

One of the aunts of the Prophet, Salmah bint Qays reports: "I went along some other Anṣārī women to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to take an oath of allegiance. He took the oath from us and then asked us not to cheat our husbands. While we were about to leave, a woman asked me to clarify what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) meant by not cheating the husbands. When I asked him, he said: "Taking his wealth and squandering it on others" (Musnad of Imām Aḥmad).

Umm 'Atiyyah says: "After taking the pledge from us, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked us to be present at both 'Id congregational prayers, clarifying that the Friday prayer is not obligatory on us and he prohibited us from joining funeral processions" (Ibn Jarīr).

Some equate the Prophet's constitutional authority with his status as the head of state rather than with his office of Messengership. They say that, since he was also the ruler of the time, his commands in that capacity were mandatory only in his lifetime, but this is an absurd position to entertain. Let us study the commands and instructions cited above. If the directives he gave for reforming those women had emanated only from his position as a temporary ruler, how could these reforms then be introduced and enforced in Muslim society all over the world? Has the command of any,ruler had universal applicability on all the Muslims settled in any part of the world? (See, for further explanation: Tafhīm al-Qur'ān, vol. 5, Surah al-Ḥashr, 59: n. 15)

23. It emerges from authentic Prophetic traditions that, during the Prophet's time, the method of taking a pledge from women was different from that of men. While taking a pledge from men, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) held their hands in his hand. However, with regard to women, he never held any woman's hand but adopted different methods for this. Below are some traditions on this issue:

Sayyidah 'A'ishah said: "By God! the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched any woman's hand while taking their pledge. He rather pronounced the oath of allegiance of women with his noble mouth: 'I have taken this pledge from you' (al-Bukhārī and Ibn Jarīr).

Umaymah bint Ruqayqah relates: "I went along with some other women to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to take the pledge of allegiance. He took the pledge from us in accordance with the above verse of the Qur'an. When we told him that we would not disobey him in all that is good and right. He said: 'As far as it is within your capacity and power."" We submitted: 'God and His Messenger are more merciful to us than we are to ourselves.' We then requested him to stretch his hand for taking the pledge of allegiance, but he said: 'I do not shake hands with women. I only make them take the pledge.' Accordingly, he took the pledge from us." In another tradition, she stated that the Prophet did not shake hands with any of the women (Musnad of Imam Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasā'ī, Ibn Mājah, Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Ḥātim).

Abū Dawūd narrates the following tradition that stops at a Prophetic Companion on the authority of al-Sha bi: "A sheet of cloth was stretched to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was taking the pledge from women. He held that sheet in his hand, saying that he does not shake hands with women." An identical report was narrated by Ibn Abi Ḥātim on the authority of al-Shabi and by 'Abd al-Razzaq on the authority of Ibrāhīm al-Nakha ĩ and also by Sa 'īd ibn Manṣur on the authority of Qays Ibn Abi Ḥāzim.

In his Maghāzi, Ibn Ishaq narrates from Abān ibn Ṣāliḥ that "the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) dipped his hand in a vessel full of water and then the women put their hands in the same vessel."

Al-Bukhārī narrates the following tradition on the authority of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas: "After delivering his sermon on 'Id day, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) moved from the rows of men and went to the section where the women were sitting. There in his address he recited the above verse of the Qur'ān and asked them: 'Do you promise to act according to this pledge?' One of the women from the crowd affirmed: 'Yes, O Messenger of Allah!""'

In a tradition narrated by Ibn Hibbān, Ibn Jarīr, al-Bazzar and others, Umm 'Atiyyah al-Anṣāriyyah said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) extended his hand from outside the house and we women extended our hands from inside the house." However, this does not prove that the women had shaken hands with the Prophet, for Umm 'Atiyyah did not mention any shaking of hands. It appears that, while taking pledge, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) may have extended his hand from outside while women from inside the house also extended their hands without touching the Prophet's hand.

24. The verse reads as follows: "Believers, do not make friends with those against whom Allah is wrathful and who are despaired of the Hereafter, as despaired are the unbelievers lying in their graves" (verse 13). This is open to two meanings. (1) The first is that they have despaired of their well- being and reward in the Hereafter, like the deniers of life after death who think that their near and dear deceased ones have gone to the graves and will never be resurrected. This interpretation has been given on the authority of 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbās, al-Hasan al-Baṣrī, Qatādah and al- Daḥḥāk. (2) The second meaning is that they are so hopeless of receiving any mercy or forgiveness in the Hereafter just as the unbelievers who are lying in the graves do not expect any good for they are now convinced of their punishment. This interpretation is given by 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ūd, Mujāhid, 'Ikrimah, Ibn Zayd, al-Kalbī, Muqātil and Manşür (may Allah have mercy on them all).