Al-Anfal 8:67–72

Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of the verse, by saying: وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (And Allah is Mighty, Wise - 67), it was pointed out that Allah Ta` ala, being the source of all might and wisdom, would have - only if they had not acted in a hurry - provided for them wealth and properties as well in their future victories through His infinite grace.

The second verse (68) is also a supplement to this admonition where it has been said that had it not been for a Divine writ already established, the course of action which you opted for - that of releasing the prisoners against ransom - would have brought upon you some grave punishment.

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

It appears in Hadith narrations that, subsequent to the revelation of this verse, the Holy Prophet ﷺ said: The Divine punishment was almost about to descend when Allah, in His grace, held it back and had this punishment come, no one except ` Umar ibn al-Khattab and Sa'd ibn Mu` adh ؓ would have remained safe from it. This tells us that the cause of Divine admonition was the act of releasing prisoners against ransom - and, in the light of the narration from Tirmidhi mentioned earlier, the reason seems to be the act of collecting spoils. But, there appears to be no contradiction between the two. Taking ransom from prisoners is also nothing but a part of spoils.

Ruling 1: In the verse under discussion, admonition came upon releasing prisoners against ransom or collecting spoils, warning of Divine punishment was given, then came forgiveness. But, what remained still not clear was the future course Muslims would be required to take in such matters. Therefore, in the next verse (69), the matter relating to spoils was made all too clear by saying: فَكُلُوا مِمَّا غَنِمْتُمْ (So, eat of the spoils you have got), that is, it has been made lawful for you in the future. But, even now, there remains a doubt to the effect that the injunction making spoils lawful had come at the present stage, however, spoils which had been collected in error before the coming of this injunction may contain some element of undesirability in it. Therefore, by saying: حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا (lawful and pure - 69) soon after it, even this doubt was removed. It means: Though, taking the initiative in collecting spoils, before the revelation of Divine guideline, was not correct - but now that the injunction making spoils lawful has been revealed, all that has been collected earlier is also lawful without any shade of repugnance or reprehensibility (karahah) in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

The prisoners taken in the battle of Badr were released against ransom. These were sworn enemies of Islam and Muslims who had left nothing undone when it came to harassing, torturing, beating and killing them, anytime, anywhere. The slightest opportunity on hand would make them inflict their savagery on them. Now that they were prisoners in the hands of Muslims, granting them a lease of life was no mean feat. In fact, it was much more than adequate for them, virtually touching the outside limits of kindness under given circumstances. Then, the amount of ransom taken from them was far too ordinary.

Certainly great is the kindness of Allah Ta'ala. Imagine the consideration shown for the discomfort caused to them in paying that paltry sum for freedom and see how it is removed. It has been said in verse 70: If Allah shall find any good in your hearts, then, He shall give you what is better than what has been taken from you - and in addition to that, He shall forgive your past sins. The word: خَیر (khayr: good) used here means 'Iman (faith) and Ikhlas (sincerity). The sense of the statement is that prisoners، who once they are free, were to take to 'Iman and Islam with sincerity, then they shall be receiving more and better than what they have given in ransom. Thus, made free and independent, the prisoners have been invited to consider their profit and loss as free individuals. In consequence, events prove that those from among them who embraced Islam were so heavily rewarded by Allah Ta` ala right here in this mortal world with wealth and property which was way higher than what they had paid as ransom - not to mention the forgiveness they were blessed with and the high ranks of Paradise they received in the Hereafter.

Most commentators have said that this verse was revealed about Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ the uncle of the Holy Prophet ﷺ because he too was one of the prisoners of Badr and ransom was taken from him too. His case was special in that he had left Makkah to participate in the battle of Badr with almost seven hundred guineas of gold on his person which was meant to be spent on the army of the disbelievers. However, before this could be spent, he was taken a prisoner with the gold.

When came the time to pay ransom, he said to the Holy Prophet ﷺ that the gold he had with him should be applied to cover the amount of his ransom. The Holy Prophet ﷺ said: The wealth you brought to support disbelief became war spoils for Muslims. Ransom has to be in addition to that. Alongwith it, he also said: You should also pay the ransom for your two nephews, ` Agil ibn Abi Talib and Nawfil ibn Harith. Thereupon, Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ said: If so much financial burden was placed on me, I shall have to beg before the Quraysh like a pauper. The Holy Prophet ﷺ said: Why? What about the wealth you had entrusted with your wife, Umm al-Fadl while leaving Makkah? Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ asked: How did you know this when I had entrusted it with my wife in the darkness of night, personally and in private. There is no third person who knows about it. He said: My Rabb رَبّ has told me everything about it. When Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ heard these words, his heart became certain that the Holy Prophet ﷺ was a true messenger of Allah. In fact, Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ had held the Holy Prophet in esteem even before this happened, but there were some doubts as well - which Allah Ta` ala removed at this moment. So, in reality, he had become a Muslim right then. But, he had a lot of money he had loaned out to the Quraysh of Makkah. If he were to declare his conversion to Islam immediately at that time, all that money would have gone waste. Therefore, he did not make a public announcement of it and the Holy Prophet ﷺ too said nothing about it to anyone. Before the Conquest of Makkah, he requested the Holy Prophet ﷺ for his permission to migrate from Makkah to Madinah. But, the Holy Prophet ﷺ advised him not to do that yet.

Following this conversation with Sayyidna ` Abbas ؓ ، the Holy Prophet ﷺ also told him about the promise appearing in the present verse which says that should he embrace Islam and become a Muslim with unalloyed sincerity of heart, then, the money he has spent in ransom shall be returned to him by Allah Ta` ala making it much more and much better for him. Hence, it was after his adherence to Islam had become public knowledge, he used to say: As for me, I am seeing the manifestation of this promise with my own eyes - because the amount of gold taken from me in ransom at that time was seven hundred guineas (20 Uqiyah). Now, at present, twenty of my slaves are running businesses at several places and no business venture being run by them is worth any less than twenty thousand dirhams each. And on top of all this, I have been blessed with the opportunity to serve Hujjaj, the visiting pilgrims, by providing to them drinking water from the sacred well of Zamzam - a service I consider to be so valuable as would pale out the possession of the entire wealth of the people of Makkah.

About some prisoners of the battle of Badr who had become Muslims, there remained a doubt that they, once back in Makkah, may turn away from Islam and start hurting them thereafter. In the next verse (71), Allah Ta` ala has removed this apprehension by saying: وَإِن يُرِ‌يدُوا خِيَانَتَكَ فَقَدْ خَانُوا اللَّهَ مِن قَبْلُ فَأَمْكَنَ مِنْهُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ ﴿71﴾ (And if they intend to commit treachery against you, then, they have already committed treachery against Allah, so Allah has given [ you ] power over them. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise). It means that should these people decide to commit a breach of trust with you, it will not bring any hurt or loss to you. They were the same people who had already committed a breach of trust with Allah. They had admitted of Allah being the Lord of all the worlds at the time of the original Covenant, then they became hostile to it. But, this breach of trust turned out to be fatal for none but them when, finally, they were disgraced and detained. As for Allah Ta` ala, He is the knower of secrets hidden in hearts, and He is the possessor of great wisdom. If these people start opposing you even now, there is nowhere they can go, certainly not anywhere outside the range of the power and control of Allah Ta` ala. Inevitably, He shall seize them as before. To sum up, it can be said that, in verse 70, the da'wah of Islam was given to the released prisoners in the mode of persuasion - while in verse 71, it was in the mode of warning that they were told that success in their worldly life and in their life to come depends on Islam and 'Iman.

Upto this point, the text was dealing with injunctions relating to fighting and killing disbelievers, taking them prisoners, setting them free and carrying on peace negotiations with them. In verses which follow right upto the end of the Surah itself, a particular related chapter has been taken up alongwith some details of its injunctions. They are the injunctions of Hijrah (Emigration) - because, situations can arise during a confrontation with disbelievers wherein neither the Muslims have the power to launch an attack against them and kill them off, nor are they willing to go for peace. In such a state of weakness, the only course through which Islam and Muslims can be salvaged is Hijrah (Emigration) which means that Muslims should leave that city or country and go to stay in some other land where acting freely in accordance with Islamic injunctions is possible.

Commentary

These are the last four verses of Surah Al-Anfal. The real objective therein is to describe the injunctions of Hijrah (Emigration) which relate to the inheritance of Muhajir (Emigrant) Muslims. In contrast, also mentioned there is the inheritance of non-Muhajir Muslims and non-Muslims.

The gist of these injunctions is that people who fall under Islamic legal authority are, in the first instance, of two kinds: (1) Muslim (2) Kafir (disbeliever). Then, in terms of that period of time, Muslims were of two kinds: (1) Muhajir, those who after hijrah becoming obligatory, had left Makkah and had settled in Madinah. (2) Non-Muhajir, those who had, for a valid reason or for some other reason, stayed behind in Makkah itself.

Mutual relationship was a common factor among individuals from all these kinds because, during the early period of Islam, it was quite common that a son would be Muslim while the father would be a Kafir, or a father would be Muslim while his son would be a Kafir. The same was true about other relationships, such as, brothers, nephews, maternal grandfathers and maternal uncles etc. And that there were mutual relationships among Muhajir and non-Muhajir Muslims is fairly obvious.

Allah Ta` ala has, in His perfect mercy and profound wisdom, declared that the wealth and property left by the deceased person belongs to his or her own relatives as its deserving recipients. Although, the initial reality was that whoever received anything during this mor-tal life was entirely owned and possessed by Allah Ta` ala in the real sense. It was a simple arrangement from Him that everyone was made, on His behalf, a temporary owner of what was given to man to use for a lifetime and drive benefit from it. Therefore, by all cannons of logic, reason and justice the inheritance of every deceased person should have ricocheted back into His ownership - the practical implementation of which was to have it placed in the Public Treasury of the Islamic State which serves the great masses of people created by Allah by fulfilling their multi-faceted developmental needs. But, in doing so, first of all everyone would have been naturally hurt to find out that, after death, one's wealth and property will not reach one's own children, nor to parents, nor to wife or husband. Then, its logical consequence was also somewhat equally natural - that no one would have cared to work for more and take steps to keep it preserved. In other words, no one would have been burning his feet to work for more than what was needed to collect just about enough to take care of the basic needs of his or her life. And it is obvious that this attitude to life would have meant disaster for all human beings and their cities.

Therefore, Allah Jalla thana'uh, made inheritance the right of relatives among human beings, specially relatives for whose benefit one has been working hard and putting financial assets together during the course of one's life.

Along with it, while instituting the distribution of inheritance, Is1am has also kept in sight the important objective for which human beings were created, that is, the obedience to and worship of Allah Ta` ala - and it was in terms of this objective that the entire human species was declared to be two separate peoples or nations: Believers and Disbelievers. The verse of the Qur'an: خَلَقَكُمْ فَمِنكُمْ كَافِرٌ‌ وَمِنكُم مُّؤْمِنٌ (It is He who created you, then, among you there is a disbeliever and among you there is a believer - AI-Taghabun, 64:2) means exactly this.

This two-nation theory severed relationships based on lineage and kinship as far as it concerned inheritance stipulating that neither shall a Muslim receive a share from the inheritance of a related disbeliever, nor shall a Kafir have any right in the inheritance of a Muslim relative. This is the subject stated in the first two verses (72, 73) and the injunction given therein is forever, was never abrogated and has continued to be Islam's basic principle of inheritance since its very beginning and shall remain operative right through the day of Qiyamah.

Allied with it, there is another injunction which concerns mutual inheritance between Muhajir and non-Muhajir Muslims about which it has been stated in the first verse that the relationship of a Muslim - until he emigrates from Makkah - shall also remain severed with Muslims who have emigrated, as far as inheritance is concerned. In this case, no Muhajir Muslim shall inherit his or her non-Muhajir relative, nor shall a non-Muhajir receive any share from the inheritance of a Muhajir Muslim. As obvious, this injunction was valid upto the time Makkah al-Mukarramah was still unconquered. After the Conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet ﷺ had himself declared: لَا ھِجرَۃَ بعد اَلفَتح (la hijrata ba` d al-fath : There is no hijrah after the Conquest). It means that after the Conquest of Makkah the obligation of Hijrah does not remain operative any more, and when the obligation of Hijrah itself ceases to be operative any more, the question of severance of relationships with those who did not migrate stands automatically terminated.

Therefore, most commentators have said that this injunction stands abrogated by virtue of the Conquest of Makkah while, according to investigative scholars of the field, this injunction too is everlasting and un-abrogated - but that it has changed under specific conditions. If conditions in which this injunction was sent at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an were to reappear at some period of time or in some country, then, the same injunction will come into force once again.

To explain it further, it can be said that, before the Conquest of Makkah, every Muslim man and woman was obligated to migrate from Makkah as an absolute duty. In obedience to this injunction, most Muslims - with the exception of only a few - had migrated from Makkah to Madinah. At that time, not migrating from Makkah had become a sign of not being a Muslim. Therefore, at that time, Islam as professed by a non-Muhajir was also taken to be doubtful and it was for this reason that mutual inheritance between Muhajir and non-Muhajir was severed.

Now, if the same conditions were to re-emerge in some country once again - that it becomes totally impossible to fulfill Islamic obligations while living there - then, emigrating from that country will become obligatory once again, so much so that not emigrating under such conditions without a strong excuse, becomes a doubtless sign of disbelief, then, the same injunction shall still apply, that is, mutual inheritance between Muhajir and non-Muhajir shall not remain operative any more. This presentation, it is hoped, makes it clear that the injunction relating to the severance of mutual inheritance between Muhajir and non-Muhajir is really no separate injunction. In fact, it is the very same first injunction which describes the severance of inheritance between Muslim and non-Muslim. The only difference is that a non-muhajir in such a case was though deprived from the inheritance because of this sign of disbelief, yet he was not classed as a disbeliever just on the basis of this much sign of disbelief - unless, of course, one was to betray open, clear and decisive proof of one's Kufr or disbelief.

And perhaps, it is in view of this expedient consideration that yet another injunction relating to non-Muhajir Muslims has been mentioned at this place. This injunction specifies that, should they ask for help from Muhajir Muslims, then, it is necessary for Muhajir Muslims to help them - so that it becomes clear that they have not placed non-Muhajir Muslims in the category of outright disbelievers, in fact, retained was their Islamic right that they be helped when in need.

And since the background of the revelation of this verse is a particular Hijrah - that from Makkah to Madinah - while non-Muhajir Muslims were only those who had stayed back in Makkah threateningly surrounded by the disbelievers of Makkah, it is obvious that the help they sought could only be against the same disbelievers of Makkah. However, when the Holy Qur'an ordered Muhajir Muslims to help them out, then, given a surface view of things, it could be deduced from here that helping them has been made necessary for Muslims against all peoples and under all conditions - even if, the people against whom help is sought already have a no-war pact with Muslims - although, doing justice and upholding pledges is a serious duty in Is-lam. Therefore, in this verse, an exempting rule was mentioned according to which, should non-Muhajir Muslims seek help from Muhajir Muslims against a people with whom Muslims already have a no-war pact, then, helping even brother Muslims against treaty-covered disbelievers is not permissible.

This was the essential meaning of the first two sentences. Now let us look at it in synchronization with the words. It is being said:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهَاجَرُ‌وا وَجَاهَدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ آوَوا وَّنَصَرُ‌وا أُولَٰئِكَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ ۚ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يُهَاجِرُ‌وا مَا لَكُم مِّن وَلَايَتِهِم مِّن شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ يُهَاجِرُ‌وا

that is: "Those who believed and those who emigrated (for the sake of Allah, leaving their homeland and relatives behind) and carried out Jihad in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives (by buying weapons and other war materials with their wealth and by staking their lives in the line of duty on the battlefield - which refers to the original Emigrants, the first among Muhajirs) and those who gave refuge and help (which refers to the Ansar of Madinah, the supporting residents of Madinah, where-after it was said about the two parties) --- those are friends to each other. (Then, it was said:) And those who did believe but did not emigrate, with them you have no friendship at all unless they emigrate.

At this place, the Holy Qur'an has used the words: Waliyy and Wilayah which mean friendship and close relations in the real sense. Early Tafsir authorities, Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas, Hasan, Qatadah, Mujahid and others have said that Wilayah at this place means Wirathah or inheritance while Waliyy means Warith or inheritor. Nevertheless, some others have taken Wilayah in the usual lexical sense, that is, friendship, help and support.

According to the first Tafsir, the verse would mean that Muslim Muhajir and Ansar shall be inheritors to each other. Their bond of inheritance shall not remain operative either with non-Muslims or with particular Muslims who did not emigrate. The first injunction, that is, severance of inheritance on the basis of difference in religion, was forever and remained as such. But, as for the second injunction, the position was that after the Conquest of Makkah, when Hijrah was no more needed, the injunction of severance of inheritance between the categories of Muhajir and non-Muhajir also did not remain operative any more. From here, some Muslim jurists have deduced that the way difference in religion is a cause of severance of inheritance, similarly, the difference in homelands is also the cause of severance of inheritance. A detailed discussion on this subject appears in books of Islamic Fiqh.

After that, it was said: وَإِنِ اسْتَنصَرُ‌وكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ‌ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُم مِّيثَاقٌ ۗ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ‌

(And if they seek your help in the matter of faith, then, you are bound to help except against a people who have a treaty between you and them. And Allah is watchful over what you do - 72). The sense of the statement is that people who have not migrated, relationship with them has though been terminated as far as inheritance is concerned, yet they are Muslims after all. If they seek help from Muhajir Muslims to safeguard their faith, then, to help them is obligatory on them. But, when doing so, Muhajir Muslims should not surren-der rules of justice and their own fidelity to an existing treaty when a situation comes in which non-emigrating Muslims were to seek the help of Muhajir Muslims against a people with whom they already have a no-war pact. If so, even helping these Muslims against the peace pact party is not permissible.

A similar incident came to pass at the time of the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. When the Holy Prophet ﷺ arrived at a peace arrangement with the disbelievers of Makkah and included in the terms of peace was the condition that the Holy Prophet ﷺ would repatriate anyone who went to Madinah thereafter. Just at the time the peace treaty was being concluded, somehow there appeared Sayyidna Abu Jandal ؓ whom the disbelievers of Makkah had put in detention where he was being tortured in all sorts of ways. He presented himself in person before the Holy Prophet ﷺ told him how oppressed he had been and sought his help. Imagine this plaint was being made before none but him who had come to this world as the universal mercy. What this plaint from an oppressed Muslim would have done to his blessed heart is something everyone cannot realize easily. But, despite this empathy, he excused himself from helping him as bound by the injunction in the said verse, and let him go back.

His return in this manner was heart-rending for all Muslims present on the occasion. But, the blessed Prophet of Islam, guided by Divine words, was as if witnessing the welcome spectacle that the years of oppression were not going to last any longer and the reward of a few more days of patience was to be added to the destiny of Sayyidna Abu Jandal ؓ . Then Makkah will soon be conquered. Then all these problems were going to be all over. Still, at that time, the Holy Prophet ﷺ acted in accordance with the command of the Qur'an and preferred treaty obligations over the personal misfortune of Sayyidna Abu Jandal ؓ . This is the distinctive feature of the Shari'ah of Islam which has made its adherents deserving recipients of victory, honour, and success which awaits them in the Hereafter. Otherwise, as observed commonly, world powers play games with treaties and pacts. They use them as weights and levers to make the weak cringe and the strong walk in trap. The game plan always stays in their hands. With the slightest expediency in sight, they would unleash a hundred interpretations and kill the treaty and begin looking for scapegoats to put the blame on.