Verses 1–16

Chapter 9: Al-Tawbah (The Repentance) · Printed edition: Volume 18, pp. 1–67

These verses mark the beginning of a chapter called Sūrah al-Tawba (‘Repentance’) or Sūrah al-Barāʾa (‘Repudiation’). However, commentators on the Qur’an have differed as to whether this actually marks the beginning of a new chapter, or whether this is a continuation of Sūrah al-Anfāl. Their disagreement stems from the disagreement of the Companions (ṣaḥāba) and the Successors (tābiʿūn) on the same question. The traditions of the Imāms appear similarly dissonant. However, based on the construction of their sayings, it seems most likely that they held these verses to be a continuation of Sūrah al-Anfāl.

When examining the themes and content of the verses in this chapter, it soon becomes apparent to the reader that they do not have a single purpose or goal in the same way that the verses of other chapters do. Other chapters of the Qur’an usually have an overarching idea that is introduced by their opening verses and summarized again in their concluding ones. Sūrah al-Tawba begins with a proclamation repudiating the idolaters. It also contains verses about fighting the idolaters and fighting the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb). A large portion of it also discusses the threat posed by the hypocrites (munāfiqūn). Meanwhile, there are verses encouraging the Prophet’s followers to go forth and fight and rebuking those who hang back, and others that address the question of allying with the disbelievers or paying the zakāt (alms tax). However, the vast majority of the verses in this chapter are concerned with fighting the disbelievers and dealing with the hypocrites in the midst of the Muslims.

In any case, this discussion does not prove especially useful when it comes to interpreting the verses themselves, although it may be relevant to discussions of their legal relevance. However, this is beyond the scope of the present work.

بَرَاءَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ١

(9:1) A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty.

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says:

‘The original meaning of the words al-barʾ, al-barāʾ, and al-tabarrī (cognates of barāʾa or “repudiation”) is to recoil from something which you detest being close to. That is why the Arabs say bariʾtu min al-maraḍ (“I became free from illness”), or barʾitu min fulān (“I disassociated from so-and-so”), tabarraʾtū (“I disclaim association from…” or “I declare myself innocent of…”), and the same for abraʾtuhu and barraʾtuhu (both signifying “I absolve him of guilt for…”). A man likewise is said to be barīʾ or a people barīʾūn (“innocent”). God says: A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger….’

This verse serves as a title or heading for the passage that follows immediately after it, insofar as it provides a succinct summary of its contents. This is similar to the role played by the opening verses of the other stand-alone chapters of the Qur’an, in which one or two of the verses that occur at their beginning provide a summation of the topic that the remainder of the verses have been revealed in order to explain.

This verse is addressed to either the faithful alone or to both the Prophet and the faithful together, based on the fact that God uses the second-person plural when He says ilā alladhīna ʿāhadtum (‘with whom you (pl.) had made a treaty’). This title verse invokes God, who is the source of this proclamation; the Prophet, who is its conveyor; and the idolaters who are the subjects of it, as they are the ones being repudiated by it. It is addressed to the Prophet and the faithful so that they will convey its message to all of the idolaters who were absent when it was revealed. This method of delivering proclamations and decrees whose message is intended for the general population also reflects the greatness and tremendousness of the one issuing them.

The passage delivers a decree that commands the faithful to repudiate the idolaters. However, this decree is not purely legislative, as had it been so, the Prophet would not have been made a partner in the issuance of the repudiation—by Allah and His Messenger—as the Qur’an conventionally assigns anything purely legislative to God alone, as per the verse and none shares with Him in His ruling (). Equally, no rule is attributed to the Prophet alone unless it falls within the domain of rulership and governance or the settling of disputes.

The verse announces the removal of protection from the idolaters with whom the Muslims had made a treaty. This treaty was not nullified at random or without reasonable justification, as God will explain a few verses below that the Muslims could not rely on the treaty they had made with the idolaters, as most of the latter were transgressors who did not respect its substance and had already broken its provisions in action. God had permitted the Muslims to repudiate such a treaty in the earlier verse: And if you fear treachery from a people, break off with them in a like manner. Surely Allah does not like the treacherous (). God allowed the Muslims to break off a treaty if they feared the other side would betray them. However, God also said that He would only approve such a course of action on the condition that the Muslims conveyed this break to the other side, lest they be taken unawares, which would itself be an act of treachery (khiyāna), which is forbidden in Islam.

Moreover, if this treaty had been repudiated without the idolaters having done anything to justify such an action, the Qur’an would not have drawn a distinction between those of them who upheld their side of the treaty and those who did not, for God makes the exception in the subsequent verse: barring the polytheists with whom you have made a treaty, and who did not violate any with you, nor backed anyone against you. So fulfil the treaty with them until its term. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary ().

In addition to this, God did not approve of the Muslims breaking their treaty with those idolaters who had violated its terms without granting them a period of grace in which they could consider their position and decide what course of action they wanted to take. This is once again so that they would not be taken unawares.

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that the aforementioned treaty is no longer valid, and security is no longer guaranteed to those idolaters who made a treaty with the Muslims only for the majority of them to violate its terms (and for those who did not violate it thus far, there is little expectation that they will adhere to it, uphold their oaths, and avoid doing harm to or plotting against the Muslims either).

فَسِيحُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّهِ ۙ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مُخْزِي الْكَافِرِينَ ٢

(9:2) Travel in the land for four months, but know that you cannot thwart Allah, and that Allah shall disgrace the faithless.

The verb siyāḥa (travel) means to journey and move upon the earth, which is why one describes constantly flowing water as sāʾiḥ (or ‘flowing,’ which is the active participle of the verb sīḥū used in the verse).

God’s decree to the idolaters that they should travel the land for four months is not a literal command, as it signifies that they have been given a grace period of four months in which they will be safe from aggression, left alone, and not harmed by anyone. This is so that they can choose whatever course of action seems most beneficial to themselves out of surviving or perishing. When God tells them, know that you cannot thwart Allah, this is a hint that it is in their best interests to reject polytheism and accept the religion of monotheism and an admonition not to cast themselves into destruction through their own arrogance or invite God to humiliate them.

Note how this verse addresses the idolaters directly—shifting from speaking about them in the third person to speaking to them in the second person—because, by addressing them directly, the Qur’an conveys decisiveness and resolution to the Muslims’ adversaries, demonstrates that they have power and superiority over them, and simultaneously disparages these enemies’ own strength and ability to retaliate.

Commentators have offered differing views about which four months the four months mentioned in the repudiation refer to. The context of the verse, as well as the fact that this is presented as a period of grace following an official proclamation, to allow the idolaters time to reflect on their situation and choose whichever they deem more beneficial for themselves between life and death, suggests the following: The four months begin on the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage (Yawm al-Ḥajj al-Akbar), which God refers to in subsequent verses, as the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage was the day on which the proclamation was delivered. Therefore, insofar as these four months are meant to serve as a period of grace to leave the idolaters without any excuse, it makes the most sense that they should begin on the day that the proclamation was delivered.

Now, historians are unanimously agreed that these verses were revealed in the year 9 A.H. Supposing that the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage is the day on which the sacrificial animals are slaughtered (yawm al-naḥr), which is the 10th of Dhū l-Ḥijja, this would mean that these four months consist of the last twenty days of Dhū l-Ḥijja, plus Muḥarram, Ṣafar, Rabīʿ al-Awwal, and the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Thānī.

Other commentators have argued that these four months begin on the 20th of Dhū al-Qaʿda—as this is the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage according to them—in which case, the four months are the last ten days of Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, Muḥarram, Ṣafar, and twenty days from Rabīʿ al-Awwal. We will discuss the problems presented by this interpretation below.

Still other commentators have argued that these verses were revealed on the 1st of Shawwāl in the year 9 A.H., in which case the four months are Shawwāl, Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram. This means that the four months referenced in the verse correspond to the Sacred Months (al-Ashhur al-Ḥurum) of the pre-Islamic Arabic calendar. They have drawn this conclusion on the basis of their reading of the subsequent verse: Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists (), which they say refers to the Sacred Months of the pre-Islamic Arabic calendar, which are Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram, in which all fighting and warfare was forbidden. Therefore, the conclusion of the pre-Islamic Sacred Months coincides with the end of the four-month grace period mentioned in this verse. However, this reading is utterly incorrect as it is not supported by the context of these verses, as should be evident.

وَأَذَانٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ يَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ اللَّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ۙ وَرَسُولُهُ ۚ فَإِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِي اللَّهِ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ ٣

(9:3) And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage: that Allah and His Messenger repudiate the polytheists: If you repent that is better for you; but if you turn your backs know that you cannot thwart Allah, and give news to the faithless of a painful punishment.

Adhān (announcement) means notification.

This verse is not merely a repetition of the first verse of the chapter—A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger… ()—for although the two sentences convey the same meaning, which is the repudiation of the idolaters, they differ in their delivery. The previous verse is both a proclamation of repudiation and the delivery of this proclamation to the idolaters, as is clear from the phrase: to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty. On the other hand, the present verse is addressed to the Muslim public, informing them of the repudiation of the idolaters by God and His Messenger, so that they can ready themselves and make the necessary preparations to fulfil God’s commands regarding the idolaters once the sacred months have passed. This is evident from God saying: an announcement… to the people, and the fact that He follows this with the command: Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them… ().

But what is the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage (Yawm al-Ḥajj al-Akbar)? As we have already noted, commentators hold a variety of opinions:

Some argue that it is the day on which the animals are sacrificed in the year 9 A.H., because this was the last time the Muslims and idolaters were all gathered together, as the idolaters would not be permitted to perform the pilgrimage in subsequent years. This reading is supported by traditions narrated from the Prophet’s Household and is also the most appropriate for the context of the proclamation of repudiation itself, because this was the day on which the Muslim and polytheist pilgrims would have been gathered together in Minā. This idea is found in traditions narrated via Sunnī collections, save for the fact that most of them associate the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage with the day on which the animals are slaughtered in any year. Hence, for them, this day occurs on each annual pilgrimage, even though there is no basis found for this naming convention in the traditions.

Another view is that this refers to the Day of ʿArafa, because it is the day on which pilgrims stop on the slopes of Mount ʿArafa (wuqūf), and this ritual is not part of the Lesser Pilgrimage or ʿUmra (hence the stopping on Mount ʿArafa is something that defines the Greater Pilgrimage and sets it apart). However, this is pure ratiocination without any evidence to support it or other means to verify it.

Others have said that the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage refers to the day following the day on which the animals are slaughtered, because it is on that day that the leader of the Muslims is supposed to deliver a sermon to the pilgrims. However, the weakness of this interpretation is self-evident.

Still others have suggested that it refers to all of the days of the Ḥajj pilgrimage, just as one might refer to ‘the day’ of the Camel (yawm al-Jamal), ‘the day’ of Ṣiffīn, or ‘the day’ of Buʿāth (in relation to these respective battles, even though these lasted more than a single day), when what is meant by ‘day’ is actually a period of time. Of course, this opinion does not rule out any of the previous opinions either, as it is compatible with all of them insofar as it says that all of those days are the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage. As for why this pilgrimage is known as ‘the Greater Pilgrimage,’ proponents of this view can turn to any of the opinions presented above, including the first, to provide an explanation.

However, a careful study of the context of the verse does not support this view. This is because there is a particular day of the pilgrimage season in which all of the pilgrims gather together and which, therefore, presents the perfect opportunity to deliver the proclamation of repudiation, such as the day of slaughtering the sacrificial animals. The fact of such a day’s existence means that merely hearing the phrase ‘the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage’ automatically calls that day to the audience’s mind. At the same time, it precludes the possibility of it referring to any of the other days of the pilgrimage season in which the pilgrims are not thusly assembled.

Then, God shifts His attention (iltifāt) to the idolaters a second time and reminds them that they cannot thwart His will so that they will see the reality of their own situation clearly, just as He reminded them in the previous verse: but know that you cannot thwart Allah, and that Allah shall disgrace the faithless (). However, in the present verse, God adds the phrase: If you repent that is better for you, which makes explicit what had been hinted at in the previous verse. This shows that when God reminds them that they cannot thwart His will, this is intended as an admonition to them and a wise piece of counsel, so that they will not cast themselves into perdition by deciding to remain idolaters and turning their backs to the religion of monotheism. Therefore, this verse expresses the same threat, advice, and admonition as the previous one, but it does so more clearly.

Next, God turns His attention to the Prophet and tells him to give news of a painful punishment to the disbelievers: and give news to the faithless of a painful punishment. The reason for the first shift (iltifāt) is that it is a continuation from the passage: Travel in the land for four months… (). Then, the reason for the shift in the passage: …and give news to the faithless… () is because the message will not be delivered without the Prophet addressing its recipients directly.

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنْقُصُوكُمْ شَيْئًا وَلَمْ يُظَاهِرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًا فَأَتِمُّوا إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ٤

(9:4) Barring the polytheists with whom you have made a treaty, and who did not violate any with you, nor backed anyone against you. So fulfil the treaty with them until its term. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary.

Here, God makes an exception for some of the idolaters, namely those idolaters who made a treaty and did not violate it directly or indirectly. They are exempt from this proclamation of repudiation and, therefore, it is obligatory for the Muslims to continue to uphold their treaty with them and fulfil it until its full term.

Note that God adds, nor backed anyone against you to who did not violate any with you. This shows that there are two ways in which the other idolaters violated their treaties, namely directly and indirectly. Direct violations of the treaty refer to acts such as killing Muslims, while indirect violations of the treaty refers to giving military support to the disbelievers against the Muslims, just as the idolaters of Mecca had armed the Banū Bakr tribe to fight against the Khuzāʿa, because the Banū Bakr tribe had an alliance with the Quraysh, while the Khuzāʿa were allies of the Prophet. Therefore, when the Banū Bakr attacked the Khuzāʿa and the Quraysh helped them, this was in violation of the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyya which they had signed with the Prophet. This was one of the reasons for the Muslim conquest of Mecca in the year 8 A.H.

The phrase, Indeed Allah loves the Godwary, explains the rationale for why the Muslims are obliged to uphold their treaties with those idolaters who had not violated its terms. It does this by making upholding treaties a facet of Godwariness (taqwā) in general, which is itself something that the Qur’an repeatedly enjoins upon its audience. For example, in one verse, we read: O you who have faith! Be maintainers, as witnesses for the sake of Allah, of justice, and ill feeling for a people should never lead you to be unfair. Be fair; that is nearer to Godwariness (), while in another, we read: Ill feeling for a people should not lead you, because they barred you from the Holy Mosque, to transgress. Cooperate in piety and Godwariness, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression, and be wary of Allah ().

This also illustrates the problem with how some commentators have read this verse, namely that the meaning of muttaqīn (lit. the wary, translated as ‘the Godwary’) here is ‘those who are wary of breaking a treaty without justification’ (according to this reading, therefore, upholding treaties is not a facet of Godwariness in general). This is because, in Qur’anic parlance, taqwā refers to avoiding all things that God has prohibited. Therefore, if the term muttaqīn was being used here to signify the specific meaning suggested by these commentators (namely, being wary of breaking the treaty rather than being wary of God), there would need to be some contextual indicator to narrow its scope accordingly.

فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ ۚ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ٥

(9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush.

The root meaning of insilākh (to pass) is ‘to skin a sheep’ (that is, to remove its hide). The insilākh of a month is a figurative way of saying that it has elapsed. The term ḥasr (besiege) means to prevent them from leaving a location. Marṣad (ambush) is a noun of place (ism makān) derived from the root r-ṣ-d (to observe or lie in wait), in the sense of waiting for someone while concealed.

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says:

‘Raṣad means to lie in wait for someone. One says raṣada lahu (he lay in wait for him), taraṣadda (he lay in wait), and arṣadtuhu (I made ready for him). God says: and for the purpose of ambush (irṣādan) by those who have fought Allah and His Messenger before (). And He says, Indeed your Lord is in ambush (mirṣād) (), to show that there is no place of refuge or escape from Him. The active participles of raṣd are rāsid for an individual and rāṣidīn for a group, but the passive participle is marṣūd for both an individual and a group. When God says, Then He dispatches a sentinel (raṣad) before and behind him, this could refer to any of the above meanings. A marṣad is a place in which one lies in wait.’

The meaning of ‘the sacred months’ (al-ashur al-ḥurum) are the months in which God told the idolaters to travel freely in the verse: Travel in the land for four months (). This was given as a grace period in which they would not be harassed because of their status. As for the Sacred Months of the pre-Islamic calendar, namely Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram, these do not align with the proclamation of repudiation that was delivered on the day of the slaughter of the sacrificial animals on 10th Dhū al-Ḥijja that year, as we have already explained above.

The reason why God refers to these months with the definite article (the sacred months) is because they have already been mentioned above. Therefore, the meaning of this passage is ‘Then, when the sacred months, which We have mentioned above and which We have set aside for the idolaters so that no one will aggress against them therein, have passed, then you may kill the polytheists…’

Based on this, it is evident why the phrase Then, when the sacred months have passed… cannot be read as referring to the passing of Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram, per the sacred months of the calendar of the pre-Islamic Arabs. This is the case whether this is meant in the sense that the end of these three months aligns exactly with the end of the four-month grace period granted in the proclamation or that the end of the sacred months marks the end of the grace period, even if the two do not align exactly. This is because, even if the phrase al-ashhur al-ḥurum (the sacred months) is commonly understood as a reference to the months of Rajab, Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram, there is nothing in the context to support such an interpretation in the case of this verse.

…kill the polytheists wherever you find them: This command signifies that once this grace period has ended, the repudiation becomes effective, and the idolaters no longer enjoy any guarantee of protection, so there is nothing to prevent any attack against them. The phrase ḥaythu wajadtumūhim (wherever you find them) shows that this rule is universal in scope. Therefore, there is no restriction on killing them, no matter in what circumstances they are encountered, even if it is during a sacred month, based on the fact that the preposition ḥayth (where/when) encompasses both time and place. Therefore, it is obligatory on all Muslims, whoever they are, to slay the idolaters whenever and wherever they are able to lay their hands upon them, even in sacred spaces or during sacred months.

This ruling was legislated to expose the idolaters to destruction and annihilation, so that the face of the earth would gradually be cleansed of them, and people would be spared from mixing with them and associating with them after the elapsing of the grace period mentioned in the verse: Travel in the land for four months ().

The upshot of this is that the passage kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush details the different ways in which they can be destroyed and depleted, in order to spare human society their evil.

Therefore, if the Muslims are able to lay hands on them and can kill them, they should kill them. If they are not able to do that, they should seize them and take them captive, and if they cannot do that they should besiege them and contain them in their locales to prevent them from coming out and mixing with the population, and if their locale is not known to the Muslims, they should lie in wait for them at every opportunity to either kill or capture them.

Alternatively, perhaps what is meant is what some commentators have suggested, namely that it should be read as kill the polytheists wherever you find them or capture them and besiege them. In other words, the verse presents a choice (takhyīr) to the Muslims, in which they can do whatever is most expedient. However, this is a somewhat wrought reading, as it requires us to imagine that capturing, besieging, and ambushing the idolaters are together a single option and that killing them is another. In any case, the context only supports the reading we have suggested.

As for the argument that the passage, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, should be read as saying seize the polytheists wherever you find them and kill them, this is an arbitrary rearrangement of the verses meaning without there being any evidence to support such an intervention. Both the passage itself and the remainder of the verse precludes such a reading.

Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that once the sacred months have passed and the four-month grace period granted to the idolaters in the verse Travel in the land for four months () has elapsed, then destroy the idolaters by any means at your disposal that you see fit, wipe them out entirely by killing them wherever you find them, even in sacred places and times. Seize them, besiege them, and lay in wait for them at every opportunity until they have been completely extirpated.

But if they repent, and maintain the prayer and give the zakāt, then let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful: Here, God sets a condition as a limit (ghāya) to the aforementioned ordinance. The term tawba (repentance) here is used in its lexical sense, namely ‘to return’—signifying the return from idolatry to monotheism through faith (īmān) and demonstrating that through the adoption of monotheistic practices, namely prayer and zakāt, and adhering to all of the ordinances of the religion that pertain to their Creator. If they do this, then leave them alone.

Let them alone (lit. clear the way for them) is a figure of speech that evokes the image of travellers continuing on the road unmolested—although it is today a figure of speech that has become cliched in Arabic through overuse—after their way had previously been blocked by assailants. Therefore, to clear the way for them means that they will not be aggressed against.

Indeed Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful provides the rationale for the ruling, then let them alone. This explains either the form of the command (namely, why God has commanded you to let them alone) or its substance (namely, why you should let them alone). In the first case, this means: God only commanded you to let them alone because He is all-forgiving and all-merciful; he forgives and shows mercy to those who return to Him. In the second case this means: Let them alone because you doing this is itself an expression of God’s forgiveness and mercy, and these are two of God’s highest attributes. Therefore, you should adopt the qualities of your Lord when dealing with others. However, the reading that is most harmonious with the apparent meaning of the text is the first one.

وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ ٦

(9:6) If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum until he hears the Word of Allah. Then convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

This verse instructs the faithful to grant safe passage to any idolater who seeks it so that they may hear the word of God. Even though this verse is a parenthesis (or is akin to one) that occurs between other verses repudiating the idolaters and revoking their safety, the ruling it contains highlights a duty that must not be forgotten, for it is a duty that constitutes the very foundation of the Prophetic mission and everything it contains: Whether promises or threats, glad tidings or warnings, the confirmation of treaties or the repudiation of them, even the rules of warfare—all of these exist for one purpose, and that is to turn people aside from the path of error and ignorance, lead them to the path of guidance and good sense, save them from the misery of idolatry, and help them attain the felicity of monotheism. Therefore, it is of the highest importance for the faithful to use every means at their disposal to guide those who are astray and to keep the truth alive, no matter how small or trivial, for the truth is the truth, no matter how small. This principle even applies to an idolater from a people with whom there is no treaty, whose safety God has repudiated, whose blood He has declared can be shed without compunction, and the sanctity of whose property and honor He has deemed forfeit. This is because God has only issued this repudiation to uphold the truth and destroy falsehood, so if there is hope of any good coming from such a person, it is wrong to turn them away until one is certain that they will neither be guided nor saved.

Therefore, when an idolater seeks safe passage so that they might learn about the teachings of the true religion and follow them if they become clear to him, then it is obligatory to grant him safe passage. This is in order that he might hear God’s word, have the veil of ignorance lifted from his eyes, and be convinced of the truth. If, after this, he persists in his erroneous ways and continues to obstinately reject the truth, then he returns to being one of those whose guarantee of security has been revoked and whose impurity must be removed from the land by any means available and in whatever way is most expedient. This is what can be understood from the verse, based on the context in which it occurs.

Thus, the meaning of the verse is as follows: If one of those idolaters whose promise of security has been revoked asks you to grant him safe passage so that he might go with you and speak to you about the truth to which you are inviting others, which is contained in the Word of God, grant him safe passage. This is so that he can hear the Word of God and have the veil of ignorance lifted from his eyes. After this, convey him to somewhere that is safe for him so that he will have received complete safety from you. God has only promulgated this ruling and granted them this safety because they are a people who do not know, for there is no blame on the ignorant if there is still hope of them being guided if they are shown the truth.

This Qur’anic ordinance is perhaps the highest embodiment imaginable of the morality, dignity, mercy, kindness, and respect for humanity which the religion of Islam calls upon its followers to practice.

Based on what we have already discussed previously, the following is apparent: First, this verse restricts the meaning of the general command to kill the polytheists wherever you find them ().

Second, the purpose of granting an idolater safety is so that he hears the Word of Allah. Therefore, if an idolater requests safe passage in order to hear the Word of God and learn about the teachings of the Prophet, then he is granted safe passage to the extent necessary to hear God’s Word and discern guidance from error and truth from falsehood. Once he has had the opportunity to do so, his safe passage is at an end and the one who granted it to him must return him to his place of safety. This is somewhere where he will not be threatened by the swords of the Muslims, so that he may go on as before once the two of them part ways and so that he can choose whatever he wishes for himself of his own free-will and free from external pressures.

Third, the Word of Allah signifies all of the verses of the Qur’an, although what is really meant here are those verses that explain the fundamental doctrines of the divine religion, expound its core teachings, and provide answers to the doubts or misgivings that the idolater might harbour. This is something that can be understood from the context of the verse.

Based on this, the error of the following is clear: That the meaning of the Word of Allah is the verses of the Qur’an discussing monotheism, or that it means Sūrah al-Tawba specifically, or only those verses from the beginning of it that were conveyed during the Hajj season, as all of these readings place arbitrary restrictions on the meaning of the verse without any clear evidence for such restrictions.

Fourth, until he hears the Word of Allah means ‘until he has become acquainted with the fundamental doctrines of the religion and its core teachings.’ Alternatively, if the one seeking safe passage is an Arab, it could mean ‘until he has heard the actual Word of God and understood it.’ However, if the one seeking safe passage is not an Arab and does not understand Arabic, then the context of the verse indicates that this means he should gain an understanding of the religion and its teachings.

Fifth, the verse is clear (muḥkam), it is not abrogated (mansūkh) by another, nor can it be abrogated by any other. This is because it embodies an essential truth of religion that is explicitly affirmed by both the Qur’an and the Prophetic sunnah, namely that there can be no punishment without incontrovertible proof first being offered. No harshness of any kind should be directed towards someone before the truth has been explained to them. One who is ignorant but searching for the truth should never be turned away, nor should one who is unaware of the truth be punished for it. It is the duty of Islam and all the Muslims to grant safety to anyone who seeks it in order to learn about the religion and understand the Prophetic message that they might follow it if they become convinced of its truthfulness. This is an inviolable and immutable principle that cannot be changed so long as Islam is Islam. Therefore, this verse is clear and cannot be abrogated or suspended until the Day of Judgement.

From this, the error of the following claim becomes clear: That the current verse, If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum until he hears the Word of Allah, has been abrogated by the subsequent verse, Fight all the polytheists, just as they fight you all ().

Sixth, this verse only enjoins the Muslims to grant safety to those idolaters who seek it for religious reasons in the hope that they will obtain the good of the religion. It does not say anything at all about granting safety to them without a religious aim or some benefit to the religion. In this case, the previous verse that commands the Muslims to use force against them remains in effect.

Seventh, God adds the injunction, then convey him to his place of safety, even though the command to grant him asylum until he hears the Word of Allah would have conveyed the intended meaning by itself. This is to show the importance of keeping open the door of guidance for everyone and respecting people’s freedom to live and act as they choose. God has avoided passing a final judgement on anyone so that whether people choose to perish or be saved, they do this of their own free will and having been presented with clear evidence, so that no one can have an argument against God on the Day of Judgement.

Eighth, as some scholars have pointed out, the verse shows that a person must believe in the fundamental doctrines of the religion on the basis of definitive knowledge (ʿilm yaqīnī) that is unpolluted by doubt or misgivings. Nothing less than this is acceptable, not even a strong conjecture (ẓann rājiḥ), as we have already seen that, in numerous verses of the Qur’an, God condemns people for following conjectures and calls on them to follow knowledge instead, for example: ‘Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge’ (), ‘They follow nothing but conjectures, and indeed conjecture is no substitute for the truth’ (), and ‘They do not have any knowledge of that, and they do nothing but surmise’ ().

If it was enough to believe in the fundamental doctrines of the religion by imitating others (taqlīd), God would not have commanded the Muslims to grant safety to anyone who sought it in order to learn about the teachings of Islam. This is because they could have been told to follow Islam blindly and stop investigating whether it is true or false.

Instead, it is necessary for a person to have certainty, whether they arrived at this through a process of rational deduction or some other method of attaining knowledge, even if this came about by coincidence. Note that this is not the same as saying that reason is the only way to demonstrate the truth of the fundamentals of the religion. This is because, while rational deduction is a valid method of arriving at certainty, one can rely on knowledge no matter the method through which it was obtained.

كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۖ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ ٧

(9:7) How shall the polytheists have any treaty with Allah and His Messenger?! Barring those with whom you made a treaty at the Holy Mosque; so long as they are steadfast with you, be steadfast with them. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary.

This verse explains what was left implicit by the divine ordinance to nullify the treaty with those idolaters who could not be trusted to uphold their promises and to fight them until they believed in God and submitted to the religion of monotheism. It also explains the exemption made for those idolaters who did not break their agreements and the command to uphold those treaties until they expire.

This verse and the six that follow it explain and clarify both the repudiation of some treaties and the exemption made for others.

How shall the polytheists have any treaty with Allah and His Messenger? This is a rhetorical question intended to deny the possibility of such a treaty. However, the verse also hastens to make an exception for those idolaters who signed their treaty in the Holy Mosque because they did not violate its terms or become lax in upholding their promises: …so long as they are steadfast with you, be steadfast with them. This is because being steadfast with those who are steadfast and keeping the peace with those who keep the peace are part and parcel of Godwariness (taqwā). That is why God invokes the following rationale at the end of the verse: Indeed Allah loves the Godwary. And we have already seen Godwariness invoked in the earlier verse, So fulfil the treaty with them until its term. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary ().

كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً ۚ يُرْضُونَكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَىٰ قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ ٨

(9:8) How? For if they get the better of you, they will observe toward you neither kinship nor covenant (lā illan wa lā dhimma). They please you with their mouths while their hearts spurn you; and most of them are transgressors.

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says in the Mufradāt:

‘Ill signifies a manifest connection or bond that stems from an oath or pact. The phrase qarāba taʾill means a bond that is so clear—like a flash of lightning—that it cannot be denied. God says they will observe toward you neither kinship nor covenant. One says āll al-faras of a horse when it gallops, comparing its speed to that of a lightning strike.’

Elsewhere, he says about the meaning of dhimma:

‘Dhimām denotes a pledge that a man would be condemned (dhamm) for breaking, the same is true of dhimma and madhamma. One might say: “I have a madhamma I will not break,” or “he discharged his madhamma to them with such-and-such a thing,” meaning that he repaid his debt to them.’ From al-Rāghib’s explanation, it is evident that dhimma is derived from the root word dhamm (rebuke, censure), which is the opposite of madḥ (praise, laud).

Perhaps the reason why the verse juxtaposes ill with dhimma is to show that they will not uphold any aspect of the responsibilities they have towards the faithful, whether these stem from real material foundations, such as the bonds of kinship, in which one is obliged to show concern for the affairs of his relations, or these are based on agreements, such as treaties and pacts sealed by oaths.

Note that this verse repeats the word How? (kayf?) to reiterate the point after the exemption made in the previous verse for those with whom you made a treaty at the Holy Mosque. This shows that this verse should be read as a continuation, namely: How shall the polytheists have any treaty with Allah and His Messenger… for if they get the better of you, they will observe toward you neither kinship nor covenant.

Therefore, the meaning of this verse is: How shall the idolaters have any treaty with God and His Messenger, because if they get the better of you and overpower you, they will not show any regard towards any kinship or agreement they might have with you. They utter pleasing words with their mouths but deny these with their hearts, and most of them are transgressors.

This shows that the phrase, they please you with their mouths, is a figure of speech, insofar as it attributes the act of pleasing to their mouths, while in reality they please you with the words they utter from these mouths.

They please you… also provides the rationale for why God has repudiated the treaty with the idolaters: How shall the polytheists have any treaty… They please you with their mouths while their hearts spurn you; and most of them are transgressors.

As for the statement, and most of them are transgressors (fāsiqūn), this highlights that the majority of them have already broken the treaty in practice, and that they have done this before even having taken the upper hand against you. So, the verse is discussing the condition of the idolaters both individually and collectively: It says that most of them are transgressors who have already broken their treaties and already do not observe either kinship or covenant with regards to the faithful, so do not expect them to observe either of these if they do gain power over you.

اشْتَرَوْا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا فَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ٩ لَا يَرْقُبُونَ فِي مُؤْمِنٍ إِلًّا وَلَا ذِمَّةً ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُعْتَدُونَ١٠

(9:9-10) They have sold the signs of Allah for a paltry gain, and have barred from His way. Evil indeed is what they have been doing. They observe toward a believer neither kinship nor covenant, and it is they who are the transgressors.

The first of these verses explains why, according to the previous verse, most of them are transgressors, while also building up to and preparing the ground for the claim made in the second verse: They observe toward a believer neither kinship nor covenant.

This shows that they are most likely referred to as transgressors in previous verse because they broke their treaties and disregarded their promises, rather than because they disobeyed God’s commandments, even if that is also true of them.

The phrase, …and it is they who are the transgressors (ʿādūn), explains everything that has been said so far about both their spiritual condition and their physical actions. The sentences provide the answer to an implicit question, namely: ‘Given that this is their condition and this is how they behave, you must not think that you have transgressed against them by repudiating your treaty with them. They are the ones who transgressed against you with their barely concealed enmity and hatred, which the majority of them have shown in action by barring from the way of God and neither observing kinship nor covenant with the believers.’

فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ ۗ وَنُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ ١١ وَإِنْ نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ عَهْدِهِمْ وَطَعَنُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ فَقَاتِلُوا أَئِمَّةَ الْكُفْرِ ۙ إِنَّهُمْ لَا أَيْمَانَ لَهُمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَنْتَهُونَ ١٢

(9:11-12) Yet if they repent and maintain the prayer and give the zakāt, then they are your brethren in faith. We elaborate the signs for a people who have knowledge. But if they break their pledges after their having made a treaty and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unfaith—indeed they have no pledges—maybe they will relinquish.

These two verses elaborate upon the earlier statement: If you repent that is better for you; but if you turn your backs know that you cannot thwart Allah ().

The meaning of repentance (tawba) in this verse is to return to believing in God and His signs. Hence, the verse does not limit itself to repentance but also stipulates that they should maintain the prayer—which is the most visible manifestation of worshipping God—and give the zakāt—which is the backbone of a religious society. Perhaps these two duties are invoked to symbolise the totality of religious duties by whose performance a person’s faith in God and His Signs is rendered complete after believing in God in the first instance.

…then they are your brethren in faith means that they are to be treated as equals to the rest of the faithful and given the same rights that Islam assigns to any other member of the Muslim community. They have the same rights as other Muslims and the same duties as other Muslims. The verse uses the idea of religious brotherhood—a concept also expressed by the verse, the faithful are indeed brothers ()—to show that they are of equal status and possess equal rights in the religion because brothers come from a common root and they are equals to one another within the family unit in the eyes of their father, who is the master of the home, and also in their extended family and community.

Now, insofar as this notion of religious brotherhood has actual legal implications, this means that Islamic law genuinely recognizes a kind of kinship between members of Islamic society. This religious kinship confers a legal status with real rational and religious implications in the same way as familial kinship does. Therefore, the Qur’an does not merely invoke the idea of brotherhood in this verse as a metaphor. The Prophet has said: ‘The believers are brothers, the lowest of them are looked after by all of them, and they are as a single fist against all others.’

But if they break their pledges after their having made a treaty and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unfaith—indeed they have no pledges…: The context indicates that these are not the idolaters God commanded the Muslims to fight in the previous verse because they had broken their pledges, who the Qur’an referred to as transgressors who did not observe either kinship or covenant with the believers. They have already broken their oaths and violated their treaties, therefore, it would not make sense for God to repeat the stipulation—if they break their pledges—here.

Therefore, these are other people who have signed treatises and made pledges to the leader of the Muslims but subsequently broken these. In other words, they have violated their treaties after making them. Therefore, God commands the Muslims to fight them and revoke their oaths. He refers to them as the leaders of unfaith (āʾimmat al-kufr) because they have taken the lead in denying God’s signs and others have followed them in that. Therefore, God commands the Muslims to fight all of them, so that perhaps they will desist from violating treaties and breaking oaths.

أَلَا تُقَاتِلُونَ قَوْمًا نَكَثُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ وَهَمُّوا بِإِخْرَاجِ الرَّسُولِ وَهُمْ بَدَءُوكُمْ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ ۚ أَتَخْشَوْنَهُمْ ۚ فَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَنْ تَخْشَوْهُ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ ١٣

(9:13) Will you not make war on a people who broke their pledges and resolved to expel the Messenger, and opened against you initially? Do you fear them? But Allah is worthier of being feared by you, should you be faithful.

This verse and the next four verses encourage the faithful and urge them to fight the idolaters by enumerating the wrongs they committed against God, their desecration of truth and honesty, and their sins and outrages against the Muslims by breaking their oaths, resolving to expel the Prophet, initiating hostilities.

Then, the verses inform the Muslims that their faith in God—in whose hand is all good and evil, benefit and harm—means that they should not fear anyone except Him, if they truly believe in Him. This is supposed to strengthen their hearts and inspire them with courage to face the idolaters. Finally, the Qur’an explains that God is testing their devotion and that they should cut off their relations with the idolaters so that they might receive the reward of those who have attained true faith.

قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ ١٤ وَيُذْهِبْ غَيْظَ قُلُوبِهِمْ ۗ وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ ١٥

(9:14-15) Make war on them so that Allah may punish them by your hands and humiliate them, and help you against them, and heal the hearts of a faithful folk, and remove rage from their hearts, and Allah turns clemently to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-knowing, all-wise.

The Qur’an repeats the injunction to fight the idolaters because, after the encouragement and urging of the above verses, the believers will be more responsive to this command. The original command was new and unexpected, without there being any advance notice or preparation for it. By contrast, this second command was only issued after the audience had been mentally and spiritually prepared to receive it.

Therefore, the phrase that follows this command—so that Allah may punish them by your hands… and heal the hearts of a faithful folk—serves to emphasize it and urge those who received it to obey it and execute it upon the idolaters. It reminds the faithful that when they fight the idolaters, God punishes them with their hands, for the believers act as God’s implements in this world. This denigrates the idolaters while at the same time promising the believers that God will assist them in their fight, heal their hearts, and remove their anger—all of this is to rouse the faithful to action and to give them the will to fight.

…and Allah turns clemently to whomever He wishes: This serves as an exception, lest the ordinance to fight be followed indiscriminately.

أَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ أَنْ تُتْرَكُوا وَلَمَّا يَعْلَمِ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا مِنْكُمْ وَلَمْ يَتَّخِذُوا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَا رَسُولِهِ وَلَا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلِيجَةً ۚ وَاللَّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ١٦

(9:16) Do you suppose that you will be let off while Allah has not yet ascertained those of you who strive and those who do not take, besides Allah and His Messenger and the faithful, anyone as confidant? Allah is well aware of what you do.

This verse provides yet another rationale for the divine command to take up arms that is intended to further encourage the faithful to fight, and it reflects the truth of the matter. In short, this world is an abode of trial and tribulation. While human souls are ultimately destined for good or ill and felicity or misery, they come into this world as a blank slate. They can only attain nearness to God through the struggle and sacrifice they undertake for the sake of their belief in God and His signs. Pure faith only becomes manifest through the trials that the believer faces in the arena of action. In this way, God distinguishes the virtuous from the vicious, and the truly faithful from those who merely espouse faith with their tongues.

Therefore, it is necessary to test those who claim that they have sold their lives and properties to God in exchange for paradise and to put them to trial on the battlefield to see which of them is truthful and which of them is dishonest. In this way, it will become clear who fully disowns the enemies of God and who continues to harbour loyalty and affection for them in his heart, so that God might grant the former life and cause the latter to perish.

Hence, the faithful must obey the command to fight. In fact, they should hasten to do so and compete with one another for it, so that they might demonstrate the veracity of their belief and the purity of their hearts and have proof to show their Lord on the day when there shall be no salvation except through the truth.

Do you suppose that you will be let off: Meaning: Do you think you will be left alone in your present condition while the truth behind your profession of faith in God and His signs has not yet been revealed?

…while Allah has not yet ascertained: In other words, while you have yet to demonstrate your willingness to struggle and disown everything besides God, the Messenger, and the faithful. As we have discussed previously in our commentary on the verse, Do you suppose that you would enter paradise, while Allah has not yet ascertained those of you who have strived and not ascertained the steadfast? (), when God speaks about acquiring knowledge of something, this refers to its coming to pass in objective reality, it does not suggest that God is unaware of who truly believes. This point is further illustrated by the end of the present verse: Allah is well aware of what you do.

According to al-Rāghib’s Mufradāt, the word walīja (confidant) refers to someone that a person relies upon but who is not a member of his family.

Examining Narrations

Key Debate: Delivering the Repudiation (Barāʾah) →

1. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, about the verse, A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger (), it is narrated from ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm’s father, from Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Abū al-Ṣabāḥ al-Kinānī, from Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘This verse was revealed after the Messenger of God returned from the Battle of Tabūk, in the ninth year of the Hijra.’

He says: ‘When the Messenger of God conquered Mecca, he did not prevent the idolaters from performing the Hajj pilgrimage that year, and it was the custom of the Arabs during the Hajj that whoever entered Mecca and circumambulated the House of God in their garments was not allowed to keep them, so they would give their clothes as charity and not wear them after the circumambulation. Therefore, whoever came to Mecca would borrow a robe for circumambulation and then return it, and if they could not borrow a robe but only had one set of clothes for themselves, they would go around completely nude.

‘A beautiful Arab woman came to Mecca to perform the pilgrimage and sought to borrow a robe, but no one would lend one to her. People told her: “If you go around in your clothes, you will have to give them as charity.” She said: “How shall I give them away while I have nothing else to wear?” So she went around the House of God in the nude while people looked on, covering her modesty with one hand at her front and another at her back, reciting the poem:

‘“What shows today in part or full / however much, is against my will.”

‘Prior to the revelation of Sūrah Barāʾa, the practice of the Prophet had been not to fight anyone save those who fought him nor to make war on anyone save those who made war on him, in accordance with the verse, So if they keep out of your way and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then Allah does not allow you any course against them (). Therefore, up until this point, the Prophet did not fight anyone who kept away from him and avoided fighting him. Then Sūrah Barāʾa was revealed and he was commanded to fight the idolaters whether they fought him or not, except those with whom he had made a treaty on the day he conquered Mecca until that treaty expired. These include Ṣafwān ibn Umayya and Suhayl ibn ʿAmr. God said: A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty: Travel in the land for four months (), then they will be slain wherever they are thereafter. These four months grace were the last twenty days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, Muḥarram, Ṣafar, Rabīʿ al-Awwal, and the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar.

‘When Sūrah Barāʾa was revealed to the Prophet, he gave it to Abū Bakr and commanded him to go forth to Mecca and recite it to people in Minā on the Day of Sacrifice. When Abū Bakr went forth, Gabriel came down to the Prophet and said: “O Muḥammad, none can deliver it on your behalf save a man who is from you.”

‘So God’s Messenger sent the Commander of the Faithful after Abū Bakr to tell him to return and took the verses from him. Abū Bakr returned to God’s Messenger and said: “O Messenger of God, did God reveal something about me?” He said: “No, but God said that only I or a man from myself could deliver this message.”’

2. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Ḥarīr, from Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘God’s Messenger sent Abū Bakr to the pilgrimage with the repudiation proclamation that he might recite it to the people, but Gabriel came down and told the Prophet: “No one can deliver this message for you except ʿAlī.” So he sent for ʿAlī and told him to take his camel al-ʿAḍbāʾ, catch up with Abū Bakr, take the proclamation from him, and recite it to the people in Mecca. Abū Bakr asked: “Is he displeased with me?” He said: “No, but God revealed that none should deliver this message except a man from himself.”

‘Then, when he arrived in Mecca, it was after noon on the Day of Slaughter (Yawm al-Naḥr), which is the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage (Yawm al-Ḥajj al-Akbar). He said: “I am the messenger of God’s Messenger to you!” Then he recited: A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty: Travel in the land for four months—the last twenty days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, Muḥarram, Ṣafar, Rabīʿ al-Awwal, and the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar—then he said: “Let none go around the House nude, male or female, and no idolater after this year, and whoever has a treaty with God’s Messenger, its duration is for these four months.”’

Author’s comments: Based on what comes later in the narration, he said this in order to provide an expiration date for the treaties that were of indefinite length. As for those treaties that were already of a fixed duration, they remained valid until their end, as made clear by the verse itself.

3. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī and Majmaʿ al-bayān, it is narrated from Abū Baṣīr from Imām al-Bāqir: ‘ʿAlī addressed the people, unsheathed his sword, and said: “None shall circumambulate God’s House naked! No idolater may perform the pilgrimage! Whoever had a treaty of fixed duration, it is valid for its duration! And whoever had a treaty without a fixed duration, it is valid for four months!” He addressed them on the Day of Slaughter. The four months grace were the last twenty days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, Muḥarram, Ṣafar, Rabīʿ al-Awwal, and the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar… the Day of Slaughter was the Greater Day of the Pilgrimage.’

Author’s comments: There are more narrations from the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household with the same meaning than can be counted.

4. In al-Durr al-manthūr, it is narrated from ʿAbdallāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in Zawāʾid al-Musnad, Abū al-Shaykh, and Ibn Mardawayh, from ʿAlī: ‘When the ten verses of repudiation were revealed to the Prophet, he first called for Abū Bakr to go and recite them to the people of Mecca. Then he summoned me and told me to go after with Abū Bakr and, when I caught up with him, to take the proclamation from him. Abū Bakr returned and said: “O Messenger of God, was something revealed about me?” He said: “No, but Gabriel came to me and told me that no one could deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself.”’
5. In the same source, it is narrated from Ibn Mardawayh, from Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ that the Messenger of God sent Abū Bakr to recite the proclamation of repudiation to the people of Mecca, then he sent ʿAlī after him to take the proclamation from him. This disturbed Abū Bakr, but the Prophet said: ‘O Abū Bakr, it cannot be delivered except by me or a man from myself.’
6. In the same source, Ibn Mardawayh narrates from Abū Rāfiʿ: ‘The Messenger of God sent Abū Bakr to the Hajj pilgrimage with the repudiation proclamation, but Gabriel came and told the Prophet: “No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself.” So, he sent ʿAlī after him; he met him between Mecca and Medina, took the notice from him, and recited it to the people at the pilgrimage.’
7. In the same source, Ibn Ḥibbān and Ibn Mardawayh narrate from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: ‘God’s Messenger sent Abū Bakr to deliver the proclamation of repudiation on his behalf, but, after he had sent him, he called for ʿAlī and said: “O ʿAlī no one except me or a man from myself can deliver it on my behalf.” So, he put ʿAlī upon is camel al-ʿAḍbāʾ and he travelled until he caught up with Abū Bakr and took the proclamation from him.

‘Abū Bakr returned to the Prophet, and he was fearful that God had revealed something about him, so when he arrived, he asked: “What did I do, O Messenger of God?” He said: “Goodness, you are my brother, my companion in the cave, and you will be with me at the Pool, but no one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself.”’

Author’s comments: There are other narrations with the same meaning as the ones presented here. Tafsīr al-Burhān narrates from Ibn Shahrāshūb, from al-Ṭabrisī, al-Balādhurī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Wāqidī, al-Shaʿbī, al-Sudayy, al-Thaʿlabī, al-Wāḥidī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Qushayrī, al-Samʿānī, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Baṭṭa, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, Abū Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī, al-Aʿmash, and Sammāk ibn Ḥarb, who narrate in their own works from ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Hurayra, Anas, Abī Rāfiʿ, Zayd ibn Nafīʿ, Ibn ʿUmar, and Ibn ʿAbbās the following: ‘When A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger and the subsequent nine verses were revealed, the Prophet dispatched Abū Bakr to Mecca to convey them to the people. But Gabriel came down and said: “No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself.” So, the Prophet said to the Commander of the Faithful: “Take my camel al-ʿAḍbāʾ, catch up with Abū Bakr, and take the proclamation from his hand.”

‘Then, when Abū Bakr returned to the Prophet, he was distressed and said: “O Messenger of God, you considered me worthy of an affair for which people had stretched out their necks, but when I undertook it, you recalled me from it?” He said: “The Trustworthy One descended to me from God and told me, ‘No one can deliver the proclamation except you or a man from yourself,’ and ʿAlī is from myself, so none can deliver it on my behalf except ʿAlī.”’

In the narrations we have cited here and those we have not cited (which are, in fact, even more numerous) and those which we will cite in this regard, there are two main points:

First, that the Prophet sent ʿAlī with the proclamation and recalled Abū Bakr because this was something that God had commanded him to do through Gabriel: ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself.’ Notice that this injunction is not specific to delivering the repudiation, or the annulment of a treaty. In none of the narrations does Gabriel say, ‘None can deliver a repudiation or annul a treaty except you or a man from yourself.’ So, there is no basis for saying that this ordinance only applied in the specific case of the proclamation of repudiation, which is what many commentators have claimed. Our position is supported by the categorical nature of the statement, as we shall see.

The second point is that just as ʿAlī was the one to proclaim the repudiation, he was also the one to proclaim the other ordinances, namely that whoever had a treaty of a fixed duration, the treaty would continue to its full term, and whoever had a treaty without a fixed duration, its term would expire after four months. And this is something that is also indicated by the verses of repudiation.

He also delivered the ordinance that no one should go around the House of God naked, which is also a divine commandment per the verse O Children of Adam! Put on your adornment in every place of prayer (). Some narrations also cite this verse in this regard, as we shall see.

In addition to these, he delivered the ordinance that no idolater would be allowed to go around the House of God or perform the Hajj pilgrimage after the present year, as indicated by the verse: O you who have faith! The polytheists are indeed unclean: so let them not approach the Holy Mosque after this year ().

There is also a fifth detail mentioned in one of the narrations that have come down on this topic; that he announced that no one shall enter paradise except a believer. This statement is not mentioned in any of the other narrations, and it seems improbable that ʿAlī would include this in the proclamation. After all, this cannot have been something that the idolaters were unaware of by this stage in the Prophet’s mission, when so many verses had been already been revealed with this meaning in both Mecca and Medina. However, at the same time, there is nothing to suggest that ʿAlī’s mission was confined to conveying the verses of repudiation. On the contrary, he delivered three or four other Qur’anic ordinances at the same time, all of which were included in Gabriel’s message to God’s Messenger, namely: ‘no one can deliver it except you or a man from yourself,’ and there is nothing at all to suggest that this only concerned the proclamation of repudiation.

8. In al-Durr al-manthūr, it is narrated from al-Tirmidhī, who declared it a good (ḥasan) narration, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and al-Ḥākim, who declared it authentic (ṣaḥīḥ), and Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in al-Dalāʾil, from Ibn ʿAbbās: ‘God’s Messenger sent Abū Bakr and told him to proclaim these words, then he sent ʿAlī after him and told him to proclaim them instead. So, they went together, performed the pilgrimage, then ʿAlī stood up during the Days of Tashrīq (the 11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhū al-Ḥijja) and announced: “A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty: Travel in the land for four months. No idolater shall perform the Hajj after this year, nor shall anyone go around the House naked, nor shall anyone enter paradise except a believer”—ʿAlī proclaimed all of these.’

Author’s comments: This report is similar in meaning to what we have extracted from the previous narrations.

9. In the same source, ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Ibn Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrate from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab from Abū Hurayra: ‘The Prophet told Abū Bakr to proclaim the repudiation during his pilgrimage.’

Abū Hurayra said: ‘Then the Prophet sent ʿAlī after him and told him to proclaim the repudiation while Abū Bakr was already performing the pilgrimage.’

Author’s comments: It has come down via a number of Sunnī sources that the Prophet made Abū Bakr his representative for the pilgrimage that year, so he was the Hajj leader while ʿAlī was the one who announced the repudiation to the people. On the other hand, Shīʿī sources say that the Prophet made ʿAlī the Hajj leader and that he entrusted him to announce the verses proclaiming the repudiation to the people. Al-Ṭabrisī mentions this in Majmaʿ al-Bayān and al-ʿAyyāshī narrates it from Zurāra from Imām al-Bāqir. This might be supported by the fact that ʿAlī was performing the duties of a judge (qāḍī) while on this journey and the Prophet had appointed him in this role. After all, it is obvious that appointing someone as a messenger to deliver the repudiation proclamation does not automatically confer him with the authority to adjudicate in people’s disputes. It seems highly plausible that he was given this responsibility as part of his role as Hajj leader. The narration is as follows:

10. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from al-Ḥasan, from ʿAlī that when the Prophet sent him to announce the repudiation to the people, he said: ‘O Prophet, I am not a speaker or a preacher!’ He said: ‘God abhors that I should permit anyone to convey this message save myself or you.’ ʿAlī said: ‘If it is necessary, then I will go.’ He said: ‘Go, for God will steady your tongue and guide your heart.’ Then the Prophet placed his hand upon ʿAlī’s mouth and said: ‘Go and recite it to the people.’ He added: ‘People shall come to you to resolve their disputes. If two disputants come to you, do not rule in one’s favour until you have heard the other, as this is the best way to discern the truth of the matter.’

Author’s comments: Traditions with a similar meaning have also been transmitted in Sunnī sources. For example, in al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from Abū al-Shaykh, from ʿAlī: ‘The Messenger of God sent me to Yemen with (Sūrah) Barāʾa, and I said: “O Messenger of God, how can you send me while I am still a young lad, and if I am asked to judge in a matter I will not know what to say?” He said: “Either you must go with it, or I must go with it.” He said: “If it must be done, I will go.” He said: “Go, for God will steady your tongue and guide your heart.” Then, he said: “Go and recite it to the people.”’

The fact that this narration makes reference to Yemen casts doubt upon its authenticity, as it is obvious from the wording of the verses themselves that Sūrah al-Barāʾa was recited to the people of Mecca on the Greater Day of the Pilgrimage in Mecca. This does not have anything to do with Yemen or its inhabitants. It seems that the original wording of the narration should have been ‘to Mecca,’ rather than ‘to Yemen,’ based on what the verse says about judgement.

11. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, Aḥmad, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Mardawayh narrate from Abū Hurayra: ‘I was with ʿAlī when the Messenger of God sent him with four (ordinances): That no one should go around God’s House naked; that the Muslims and idolaters would not make the pilgrimage together after this year; that whoever had a treaty with God’s Messenger, the treaty would continue for its duration; and that God and His Messenger had repudiated the idolaters.’

Author’s comments: There are multiple narrations transmitted from Abū Hurayra with the same meaning but different phrasing. However, the texts of these narrations are not free of problems, as we shall discuss. The one quoted here is perhaps the strongest of them in this regard.

12. In the same source, Aḥmad, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Mardawayh narrate from Abū Hurayra: ‘I was with ʿAlī when the Messenger of God sent him to the people of Mecca with (Sūrah) Barāʾa, and we proclaimed that no one would enter paradise except a believer, that no one should go around the House of God naked, that whoever had a treaty with God’s Messenger, it would expire in four months’ time, and that when these four months had passed, God and His Messenger would be absolved of the idolaters, and no idolater would be allowed to make the Hajj pilgrimage after this year.’

Author’s comments: There are obvious textual confusions in this narration. First, because it includes the announcement that none will enter paradise except a believer. We have already discussed how this concept had been presented in numerous verses of the Qur’an from both before and after the Prophet’s Emigration over the course of his career, and that this was something everyone would have been aware of, whether Muslim or idolater, city-dweller or nomad. Therefore, what need would there have been to convey this to those assembled?

Secondly, the announcement concerning the treaties between the Messenger of God and the idolaters does not accord with what the Qur’an’s own verses have to say on the matter, nor with the numerous narrations we have already examined, namely that the repudiation would come into effect after four months for everyone.

And thirdly, what we shall mention below.

13. In the same source, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in al-Dalāʾil narrate from Abū Hurayra: ‘Abū Bakr sent me out during that pilgrimage with the announcers he had sent on the Day of Slaughter to deliver the announcement in Minā that no idolater would be allowed perform Hajj after that year, nor would they be allowed to go around the House of God naked. Then the Prophet sent ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib next and told him to announce the repudiation, so on the Day of Slaughter, ʿAlī announced with us the repudiation, that no idolater would be permitted to perform Hajj after this year, and that no one should go around the house of God naked.’
14. In Tafsīr al-Manār, it is narrated from al-Tirmidhī, from Ibn ʿAbbās that the Prophet sent Abū Bakr… then ʿAlī stood up during the Days of Tashrīq and called out: ‘God and His Messenger are freed from responsibility for any idolater, so travel in the land for four months, and no idolater shall make the pilgrimage after this year, nor shall they go around the House of God naked, nor shall anyone enter paradise except a believer. ʿAlī announced this amongst the pilgrims until his voice became hoarse, then Abū Hurayra took over from him.’
15. In the same source, from Aḥmad and al-Nasāʾī, it is narrated via Muḥarrar ibn Abī Hurayra from his father: ‘I was with ʿAlī when the Messenger of God sent him to Mecca with the proclamation of repudiation. We announced that none would enter paradise except every Muslim soul, nor should anyone go around the House of God naked, and that anyone who had a treaty with the Messenger of God, the treaty would be honored for its duration, and that no idolater would be permitted to make the Hajj pilgrimage after this year. I called out with him until I lost my voice.’

Author’s comments: You can see that what all of these narrations have in common is the fact that the Prophet sent ʿAlī in place of Abū Bakr after Gabriel descended and told him, ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself.’ This is also reflected in the Prophet’s response to Abū Bakr when he asked why he had been relieved of this duty, namely that God had revealed to him words to the effect that ‘No one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself.’

In any case, this statement is general and, as such, it covers not only delivering the repudiation but any divine command that the Prophet needed someone to convey to the people. There is no evidence in the texts of the narrations or anywhere else that this principle only applied to Sūrah Barāʾa. The prohibition on circumambulating the Kaʿba naked, or of idolaters attending the Hajj in following years, announcing that treaties with a fixed duration will lapse once this duration is complete, and stipulating a duration for those treaties without a set duration are all clearly divine ordinances revealed along with the Qur’an. Therefore, what is the significance of giving responsibility for these to Abū Bakr and then taking it away, or having Abū Hurayra announce them by himself, or him proclaiming them as part of a group when ʿAlī’s voice had grown hoarse until he lost his own voice from crying out so much? Were it permitted for Abū Hurayra to undertake this by himself in this situation, then why was it not permitted for Abū Bakr to do likewise?

This is why some commentators such as Ibn Kathīr and others like him have devised a justification for the contents of these narrations in order to defend their validity, namely that the phrase ‘No one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself’ only refers to conveying the repudiation; it does not encompass any of the other ordinances that ʿAlī proclaimed. Hence, they say, the Prophet only appointed ʿAlī to convey the verses of Sūrah Barāʾa to the assembled pilgrims because it was the custom of the Arabs that a treaty could not be broken except by one of its parties or a man from his own household, and that it was out of respect for this custom that the Prophet sent ʿAlī to take over delivery of the proclamation from Abū Bakr, as this contained the revocation of the treaty with the idolaters.

This, they say, is what it meant when Abū Bakr asked the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of God, was something revealed about me?’ He said: ‘No, but no one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself.’ In other words: ‘I only removed you and sent ʿAlī out of respect for this Arab custom.’

Therefore, this appointment did not deprive Abū Bakr from his position as leader of the Hajj, and Abū Bakr had announcers proclaiming these new ordinances to the pilgrims, such as Abū Hurayra and other men whose names are not mentioned in the narrations. ʿAlī was one of those with this task, which is why some narrations describe Abū Bakr delivering a sermon to the pilgrims in Minā before turning to ʿAlī and telling him: ‘Stand up, O ʿAlī and deliver the message of God’s Messenger.’ These are the justifications offered for these accounts.

However, when examining these verses and narrations, a critical researcher will ponder the theological disagreements that erupted between Sunnī and Shīʿī Muslims and recall that both sects sought to demonstrate the superiority of their favoured candidate to succeed the Prophet (i.e. Abū Bakr or ʿAlī) over the other. Furthermore, they will not doubt that the scholars of these two sects have confused the study of exegesis (tafsīr), the study of narrations (riwāyāt), and the study of theology with one another. The purpose of exegesis is to uncover the meanings of the Qur’an’s verses; the purpose of the study of narrations is to examine the meaning of narrations in order to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic amongst them; and the study of theology (kalām) is concerned with the question of whether Abū Bakr was superior to ʿAlī or ʿAlī was superior to Abū Bakr. This means that in their commentaries on these accounts, scholars have tended to focus on the question of which was superior in status: leading the Hajj or delivering the verses of Sūrah Barāʾa? And, if leading the Hajj was superior, then was it entrusted to ʿAlī or to Abū Bakr? As regards the theological discussion, that is not something we wish to delve into here as it is beyond the aims of our present work. However, from the perspective of exegesis and narrations, insofar as these are connected to the meaning of the verses, it can be said that these scholars have erred in their explanation of these verses.

I would like to know from whence these scholars have drawn the conclusion that the Prophet’s statement, ‘No one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself,’ is restricted to the breaking of treaties and does not apply to anything else beyond that. There is no evidence for this from reason or revelation. Furthermore, the Prophet’s statement is already clear in its meaning, namely that the Messenger of God was responsible for conveying this message and that no one could perform this duty except him or a man from himself. The breaking of the treaty with the idolaters was something ordained by God, as was the repudiation, or any other ordinance He sent down to the Prophet that was the responsibility of God’s Messenger to convey.

This is distinct from those messages of his that he was not charged with conveying to others personally, such as the letters he sent to different kings, nations, and peoples summoning them to embrace Islam. The same is true of the other letters he sent via faithful men to instruct people in matters of religion or concerning affairs of government, leadership, and the like thereof.

However, there is a clear difference between these sorts of matters and that of the repudiation proclamation and similar affairs: In addition to the verses of repudiation, it also prohibited circumambulation while naked and forbade idolaters from performing Hajj after that year. These were new divine ordinances that had not yet been conveyed to those who needed to hear them, namely those idolaters who were resident in Mecca and those visiting it as pilgrims. For a message of this importance and magnitude, none could deliver it on behalf of God except His Messenger. In other circumstances, where the Prophet used ordinary messengers to convey messages, this was where he had already delivered the original revelation by conveying it to the people around him. This was the case with his summons to submit to God and all of the other teachings of the religion, for which he would say: ‘Let those of you who are present convey it to those who are absent.’ Then, if he needed to convey an ordinance to someone where ordinary means were not sufficient to convey the message or where using these means to deliver it would prove ineffective, he would write a letter or send an official messenger, as he did when he was summoning emperors and kings to Islam.

If any objective researcher reflects on the meaning of the words ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself,’ they will note that he said, ‘no one can deliver it from for you (ʿanka) except you.’ He did not say, ‘no one can deliver it except you or a man from yourself’ as this would suggest that this person shared his status as a divine messenger. Nor did he say, ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf except a man from yourself,’ as this would include all of the other messages he charged the ordinary faithful to deliver on his behalf. The fact that he said: ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself’ shows that he had duties as a divine messenger that only he could discharge and that no one else could undertake in his place except someone who was from himself and could be relied upon not to fail when acting in his stead. One of these duties was delivering new ordinances from God to the people.

I wonder, then, what led these scholars to ignore the revelation that God sent to the Prophet via Gabriel, that ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself,’ and to explain it away as ‘the custom of the Arabs that a treaty could not be broken except by one of its parties or a man from his own household.’ After all, this custom of the Arabs is not recorded anywhere in the accounts of their history or battles, and this custom is not mentioned in any discussion except this one, concerning Sūrah Barāʾa, in which Ibn Kathīr mentions it and attributes it to other scholars.

Now, if it had indeed been the custom of the pre-Islamic Arabs to do this, what bearing does this custom have on Islam and what value does it have for the Prophet, given that barely a day went by without him abrogating a custom of the pre-Islamic era or breaking the traditions of his people? This custom does not reflect any lofty moral values or beneficial traditions, rather it embodies the tribal mentality of the pre-Islamic Arabs and the preferences of the clan elders. On the day he conquered Mecca, the Prophet is said to have stood before the Kaʿba and proclaimed: ‘Lo! Every exploit, every blood feud, and every claim to wealth is now beneath these two feet of mine, save for the custody of the House of God and quenching the thirst of the pilgrims!’

Even if this had been an inoffensive pre-Islamic custom, did the Prophet disregard it when he entrusted the verses to Abū Bakr and sent him to deliver them to the pilgrims in Mecca? Or did he forget it until, when Abū Bakr was already on his way, he suddenly remembered or was reminded by one of his companions? And even if this was the case, was he then obliged to observe this custom? The Prophet is the paragon of good character, and taking into account whatever needs taking into account is part of judiciousness and good sense. Therefore, how could those who reminded him neglect something so important in the first instance? A custom such as this is not something one simply forgets, any more than a warrior forgets his sword.

Was it a revelation from God that he should not disregard this noble Arab custom, and that it is now a divine ordinance, meaning that it is forbidden for the ruler of the Muslims to revoke a treaty unless he does it himself or entrusts it to a member of his household? What is the sense in such a ruling?

Or was this a moral rule that the Prophet was obliged to observe because the idolaters would not have accepted the revocation of this treaty unless they heard it from him personally or from someone from his household? However, at this time, the Prophet was the one who had dominion over them, so who were they to decide whether or not they would accept such a revocation? He had the power to unilaterally revoke it, with or without their agreement.

Or was it the case that the faithful were the ones being addressed by God’s words with whom you have made a treaty (), an announcement from Allah and His Messenger (), and kill the polytheists ()? In which case, does this mean they would not have considered their treaty with the idolaters void unless they heard these words from the Prophet or a member of his household? Would they not have realized that the treaty was voided if they had simply heard the verses from Abū Bakr? If this were the case, then why would anyone who heard the announcement from Abū Hurayra, who proclaimed it until he lost his voice, accept that the treaty was voided? Was Abū Hurayra closer to ʿAlī than Abū Bakr was to the Prophet? The truth is that all of these narrations that portray Abū Hurayra and others proclaiming this message to the people are inauthentic and should not be relied upon as historical accounts.

In Tafsīr al-Manār, we read:

‘The collected narrations show that the Prophet sent Abū Bakr as the leader of the Hajj in the year 9 A.H. and commanded him to inform those idolaters who were performing the pilgrimage that they would not be allowed to perform it after this year. Then, he replaced Abū Bakr with ʿAlī so that the latter could inform them that their treaties were voided, that they had a grace period of four months to consider their options, that those treaties with fixed durations would be honored until their terms had expired, and to recite to them the verses that contained these proclamations from the beginning of Sūrah Barāʾa. These are the first forty or thirty-three verses. The narrations appear to hesitate between these two numbers because some of them count in tens, counting a part thereof as a whole.

‘This is because the custom of the Arabs at the time was that treaties could only be broken by the one who made them or a member of his close family. ʿAlī alone met this criterion, but the leadership of the Hajj remained with Abū Bakr, who helped ʿAlī carry out his duty and assigned some of the Companions such as Abū Hurayra to do this too.’

He also says:

‘Some of the Shīʿa blow ʿAlī’s appointment out of all proportion—as is their habit—and they add to it details from inauthentic sources that do not match what is known from reliable narrations. They claim that this demonstrates that ʿAlī was superior to Abū Bakr and, therefore, more entitled to succeed the Prophet than him. They claim that the Prophet relieved Abū Bakr of his duty to convey Sūrah Barāʾa because Gabriel commanded him to do this, and that he told him that no one could deliver it on his behalf except him or a man from himself. Furthermore, they do not confine this restriction to the breaking of treaties. In fact, they extend it to cover the entirety of the religion.

‘There is an abundance of authentic traditions to the effect that conveying the religion of Islam to others is a collective obligation upon all the Muslims—in the same manner as defensive warfare (jihād) is a collective obligation for the sake of protecting it—and that this is a duty, not a mark of superiority. One such tradition is what the Prophet said during the Farewell Pilgrimage (Hijjat al-Wadāʿ) to an audience of thousands: “Let those present convey this to those absent.” This statement is repeated in the two Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim and in other collections. In some accounts, Ibn ʿAbbās says: “For by He in whose hand is my soul, it was his last will and testament to his nation: ‘Let those present convey this to those absent.’” Then there is the tradition: “Convey from me even but a single verse of the Qur’an.” Al-Bukhārī narrates it in his Ṣaḥīḥ and al-Tirmidhī narrates it in his Sunan. If it were not for sayings such as this, Islam would not have spread so quickly across the globe.

‘In fact, some of the Shīʿa reportedly claim that he removed Abū Bakr from his post as the leader of the Hajj and appointed ʿAlī in his place. This is a manifest falsehood that contradicts everything that has been narrated about this practical issue that is known to experts and laymen alike.

‘The truth is that ʿAlī—may God ennoble his countenance—was charged with conveying a specific message but, on that pilgrimage, he went as a follower of Abū Bakr, who had overall responsibility for overseeing the performance of this annual collective pillar of Islam. This was to the extent that it was Abū Bakr who told him when he should convey the message. Recall that he said: “Stand up, O ʿAlī and deliver the message of God’s Messenger.” Then he appointed some of the Companions to help him convey it to others, as we saw in the account of Abū Hurayra that is narrated in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and other works.’

The author (of Tafsīr al-Manār) then says that Abū Bakr’s leadership of the Hajj, combined with his leadership of the prayer in place of the Prophet during the latter’s final illness, constitutes clear evidence of his superiority above all of the other Companions and, therefore, his priority to succeed the Prophet.

As for his claim that there is an abundance of authentic traditions to the effect that conveying the religion of Islam to others is a collective obligation upon all the Muslims, this shows that he has not properly understood the meaning of the divine command that was revealed to the Prophet: ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf you except you or a man from yourself.’ He has failed to realize the difference between saying, ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf (ʿanka) except you or a man from yourself,’ and the saying, ‘no you can deliver it from you (minka) except you or a man from yourself.’ As a result of this confusion, he claims that if we take the former statement (‘on your behalf’) as categorical, this means that no one except the Prophet or a man from himself can convey any aspect of the religion to anyone else. Therefore, he believes that the abundant traditions commanding Muslims to convey their religion to others as a collective obligation refutes it and qualifies the statement, ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf…’, making it specific to conveying the revocation of the treaty and reducing God’s ordinance to a mere pre-Islamic Arab custom.

This confusion of terms leads him to claim that reading the statement ‘no one can deliver it on your behalf’ as categorical would lead to people neglecting a duty that is considered essential by the totality of the Muslims, namely the duty to convey the message of Islam to others. This is to the extent that he invokes evidence from the two Ṣaḥīḥs and other works in the form of the Prophetic saying: ‘Let those present convey this to those absent,’ and readers will already have noted that the Prophet’s statement, ‘no one can deliver it’ refers to new revelations, rather than the teachings of the religion as a whole.

As for his claim, ‘In fact, some of the Shīʿa reportedly claim that he removed Abū Bakr from his post as the leader of the Hajj and appointed ʿAlī in his place. This is a manifest falsehood that contradicts everything that has been narrated about this practical issue that is known to experts and laymen alike,’ this is neither merely a claim or a falsehood (in fact, he is the one uttering falsehoods). On the contrary, this is an account reported in Shīʿī sources, which we have presented above.

Disputes about the question of who led the Hajj pilgrimage that year are not our primary concern in discussing the statement, ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf you except you or a man from yourself.’ After all, whether Abū Bakr led the Hajj or whether ʿAlī did, and whether leading the Hajj indicated either of them were superior over the other, the fact is that leading the pilgrimage falls within the scope of general Islamic authority, which is concerned with managing the daily affairs of Muslim society and implementing the divine laws. It has nothing to do with divine knowledge or the contents of the revelation sent down from the heavens on matters of religious teaching.

On the contrary, it is merely a function of the Prophet’s authority as a political leader to appoint Abū Bakr or ʿAlī as the leader of the Hajj. On another day, he gave Usāma ibn Zayd authority over Abū Bakr and all of the Companions on a military expedition. On another day, he appointed Ibn Umm Maktūm as the governor of Medina, even while the city had people superior to him living in it. He appointed someone else governor of Mecca after its conquest, and another person still as governor of Yemen. He put someone else in charge of tax collection. He even made Abū Dajāna al-Sāʿidī or Sabbāʿ ibn ʿArfaṭa al-Ghaffārī (according to the Sīra of Ibn Hishām) governor of Medina in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage before Abū Bakr had departed on the Hajj pilgrimage according to what has been narrated in al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, and other collections. But none of this signifies anything more than the fact that these individuals were qualified for the roles they were given—it certainly does not render them superior to all others.

As for divine revelation, which contains God’s teachings and ordinances for mankind, the Prophet cannot delegate this task to someone who is lesser than him. Nor does anyone occupying positions of temporal authority over Muslim society have the right to deal with matters of revelation, whether by declaring verses general or particular, or confirming it or abrogating it. Furthermore, divine revelation is not dictated by the pre-Islamic customs of a particular people, such that it needs to accord with these in order to keep people happy.

By confusing these two distinct arenas of authority, we bring down the divine teachings from the apogee of dignity to the perigee of social thought, and reduce them to nothing more than norms, customs, and conventions. Thus, the human being explains metaphysical realities in a way that ordinary minds can comprehend and treats as important what society considers important rather than what God considers important, while neglecting what people neglect, until it reaches the point that someone says that a divine revelation is nothing more than a pre-Islamic Arab custom.

If you ponder on the account of how the verses of repudiation were taken from Abū Bakr and given to ʿAlī as presented in these narrations, you find that the narrators have been surprisingly lax in their preservation of the material, even expanding them to include additional details from the narrators themselves (this is assuming that these accounts have not been distorted to serve some agenda). For example, in the majority of them, we are told that the Prophet sent Abū Bakr to deliver the verses to the idolaters but then sent for ʿAlī and told him to take the verses from him and deliver them to the people instead, so Abū Bakr came back. In others, we are told that he sent Abū Bakr as the leader of the Hajj pilgrimage but then sent ʿAlī after him with the verses of Sūrah Barāʾa. Others still say that Abū Bakr himself told ʿAlī to convey the verses and then ordered other Companions to assist him in delivering the message.

Meanwhile, al-Ṭabarī and others relate from al-Mujāhid concerning the verse, A repudiation by Allah and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty (), that it concerned treaties between the Muslims and the Khuzāʿa, Mudlij, and other tribes. According to this version of events, ‘God’s Messenger returned from the Battle of Tabūk and decided to perform the pilgrimage. However, when he arrived at the House of God, he saw the idolaters going about it in the nude and did not want to perform the pilgrimage so long as this was the case. So, he sent Abū Bakr and ʿAlī amongst the people in Dhū al-Majāz and to the places where they were engaged in trade and throughout the pilgrimage season they went around and told those idolaters who had treaties with the Prophet that these treaties would expire no later than four months thence. These four months were the four consecutive sacred months—the twenty latter days of Dhū al-Hijja until the first ten of Rabīʿ al-Awwal (sic), after which the treaty would be null and void and people would fight them until they were dead.’

If this is the case, then how can the author of Tafsīr al-Manār say that Shīʿī claims are ‘a manifest falsehood that contradicts everything that has been narrated about this practical issue that is known to experts and laymen alike’? If he means everyone at the time of the Prophet who saw this or heard about it first-hand from those who did, what benefit is this to us now?

If he meant that it was known to experts and laymen from the era immediately after that of the Prophet or the era that followed this, and that they knew this and did not doubt it in the least, then why do there exist contradictory narrations from them that disagree on important details in their accounts? For example, some of them say that only ʿAlī could deliver the proclamation of repudiation, while others indicate that Abū Bakr helped him, and others still say that Abū Hurayra and other unnamed persons assisted with this. Some say that there were nine verses, while others say ten, and others still say sixteen, or thirty, or thirty-three, or thirty-seven, or forty, or the entirety of the chapter.

Furthermore, accounts differ about what Abū Bakr did when ʿAlī took the verses from him. Some say that Abū Bakr continued on his way as the leader of Hajj, while others say that he came back, which has forced some commentators such as Ibn Kathīr to attempt to reconcile this by saying he only returned after the pilgrimage was completed. But then, other accounts said that he came back to the Prophet to ask why he was relieved of his duty. In the narration of Anas that we shall consider below, the Prophet reportedly sent Abū Bakr with Sūrah Barāʾa, only to recall him and take the verses from him.

Then there are reports that disagree on the day on which this announcement took place. Some say that the Hajj took place in the month of Dhū al-Ḥijja and that the Greater Day of the Pilgrimage refers to all the days of the pilgrimage, or to the Day of ʿArafa, or to the Day of Slaughter, or to the day after the Day of Slaughter, or to other days entirely. Then there are accounts that say Abū Bakr performed the pilgrimage that year in Dhū al-Qaʿda.

What about the four months grace period? Some reports say that this began in Shawwāl, others say it began in Dhū al-Qaʿda, while others say it began on the tenth of Dhū al-Ḥijja, and others still say it began on the eleventh of that month, and there are more reports and dates besides this. Some of these say the grace period corresponded to the pre-Islamic forbidden months of Dhū al-Qaʿda, Dhū al-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram, while others still say that it began on the day the message was delivered or on the day it was sent down by God.

This is the state of disagreement between these narrations. With this in mind, how can anyone claim that anything about this was known to everyone, the experts and the laity alike? Bear in mind also that some of these explanations given above, even if they are statements from early commentators, the statements of early commentators are no different in practice from traditions with incomplete chains of narration, and they should be treated as such.

Now, let us address the claim in Tafsīr al-Manār that ‘the truth is that ʿAlī was charged with conveying a specific message but, on that pilgrimage, he went as a follower of Abū Bakr, who was the leader of the Hajj.’ There is no doubt that when the Prophet entrusted ʿAlī with delivering the verses of Barāʾa and the other four proclamations mentioned above, this was a special task. Recall, previously, that when Gabriel revealed to the Prophet, ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself,’ he did not specify that this was in relation to the verses of repudiation. Therefore, we should not mix up the meaning of Gabriel’s statement with the specific mission given to ʿAlī on that journey.

As for the claim that ʿAlī was under Abū Bakr’s authority on that pilgrimage, this is something he has deduced from the account of Abū Hurayra. However, we have already highlighted the problems with his retelling of events.

16. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from Ibn Abī Shayba, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and al-Tirmidhī and deemed reliable by Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh from Anas: ‘The Prophet sent the repudiation with Abū Bakr, then he recalled him and said: “It does not behove anyone to convey this except a man from my own family (min ahlī),” so he called ʿAlī and gave it to him.’

Author’s comments: Rashīd Riḍā—the author of Tafsīr al-Manār—argues that his statement, ‘or a man from myself,’ found in the narration of al-Sudayy, has been explained by other narrations in al-Ṭabarī and elsewhere, such as the phrase ‘or a man from my household (min ahl baytī).’ This, he says, refutes the claim that the phrase ‘from myself’ (minnī) means that the soul of ʿAlī is like the soul of God’s Messenger, or that he is akin to him, or that he is superior to all of the other Companions.

The narrations he is referring to are those which he previously cited: ‘And Aḥmad narrates with a reliable chain of narrators from Anas: “The Prophet sent the repudiation with Abū Bakr, but when he reached Dhū al-Ḥulayfa, he said: ‘None can convey this except a man from my own family (min ahlī),’ so he sent ʿAlī with them instead.”’ As you can see, this is almost identical to the narration from Anas we have already quoted above and—both contain the phrase ‘or a man from my own family’—and even where there are disparities in the wording, the meaning is essentially the same.

However, the problems with Rashīd Riḍā’s claims are as follows:

First, the phrase ‘or a man from myself’ (aw rajul minnī) only occurs in a single version of the tradition, with an incomplete (mawqūf) chain of narrators, namely the narration of al-Sudayy which he has already criticized as weak (ḍaʿīf). Instead, the phrase ‘or a man from yourself’ (aw rajul minka) was used in the revelation from Gabriel that is recorded in the majority of the authentic narrations. Rashīd Riḍā further claims that the Prophet used the phrase ‘a man from my household’ (min ahl baytī) in many narrations when, in fact, there is only the single narration from Anas that uses this phrasing. Even then, it uses the word ahl (family) rather than ahl bayt (household).

Second, these narrations—as has become clear—have been transmitted by meaning rather than by words. Therefore, you cannot use their vocabulary to explain the wording of Gabriel’s revelation that is recorded in the majority of authentic accounts of this event found in both Sunnī and Shīʿa collections of traditions.

Therefore, if the phrase min ahl baytī (from my household) was suitable to explain the phrases rajul minka (a man from yourself) or rajul minnī (a man from myself), then the same rule would apply to this narration and all of the other narrations with regard to the aforementioned narration from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī. In it, the Prophet says: ‘O ʿAlī, none can deliver this on my behalf except me or you.’ Therefore, can this not be adduced to explain the meaning of Anas’ narration ‘except a man from my household’ or ‘except a man from my family,’ and the other narrations as well, ‘except a man from yourself,’ and ‘except a man from myself.’ In which case, all of these phrases can be interpreted as references not only to the person of ʿAlī as being the only person suitable for the task at hand, but also to the idea that the soul of ʿAlī is like the soul (nafs) of the Prophet, as well as being from his family (ahl) and his household (ahl bayt). Therefore, by making this claim, Rashīd Riḍā ends up with precisely what he had hoped to avoid, and even more.

Third, the idea that ʿAlī is in the position of the Prophet’s self or soul (nafs) is not based solely on this one tradition and the phrase ‘rajul minnī,’ as Rashīd Riḍā seems to suppose. After all, if someone was to say: ‘so-and-so is from myself’ (fulān minnī), this would not imply that they considered this person to be like themselves in every aspect of their existence and a resemblance of them. On the contrary, such a statement would only indicate that there was some connection between them and that the other person shared some similarities with them. For example, look at Abraham’s statement: So whoever follows me is indeed from me (). This is unless, of course, there is some contextual indication that the speaker intends a closer connection than this, for example, as we find in the verse: Any of you who allies with them is indeed one of them ().

On the contrary, it is not understood merely from the phrase ‘a man from myself’ or ‘a man from yourself,’ but from the fact that this appears alongside the injunction: ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you.’ Now, based on what we have already said, if Gabriel had said: ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from your family’ or ‘a man from your household,’ then we would deduce the same significance that we deduce from ‘No one can deliver it on your behalf except you or a man from yourself’ or ‘No one can deliver it on my behalf except me or a man from myself.’ This is in addition to the fact that he explains his decision to Abū Bakr using this phrase, when Abū Bakr could be seen as being ‘from himself’ by virtue of the fact that Abū Bakr was one of his followers.

Fourth, Rashīd Riḍā neglects the abundant—or successively narrated (mutawātir)—authentic traditions that indicate that the Prophet’s Household are ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn, as we have already mentioned in our commentary on the Verse of Mubāhila and as we shall discuss in greater detail in our treatment of the Verse of Purification (Āyat al-Taṭhīr).

At the time Sūrah Barāʾa was revealed, then, there was no man in the Prophet’s Household except ʿAlī, which would mean that no matter which of these phrases was used (‘a man from myself,’ ‘a man from my family,’ or ‘a man from my household’), it was intended as an allusion to Imām ʿAlī. This leaves us with the same conclusion as above.

Rashīd Riḍā seems to believe that the phrase ‘from my household’ (min ahl baytī) is of broad scope, encompassing all of the Prophet’s relatives from the Banū Hāshim or from the Banū Hāshim and his womenfolk. In interpreting it in this manner, he renders it an ordinary term and removes any special distinction from being conferred upon the members of the Prophet’s Household. With this in mind, the meaning of the statement becomes ‘no one can annul the treaty on my behalf except a man from the Banū Hāshim.’ However, this reading depends upon us looking only at the meaning of these words in everyday language, rather than considering their significance within the framework of the religion. We have already discussed this in relation to the words ibn (son) and bint (daughter) when debating whether the son of a man’s daughter can also be called his son by extension. There are those who base their argument purely on the conventions of language, namely whether or not the standard usage of the language allows such a claim. However, this represents a confusion between the two realms of vocabulary and meaning, or between social conventions and divine religious ones, as we have already explained elsewhere.

However, possibly the strangest claim that Rashīd Riḍā makes is that the tradition he cites is an explicit and unambiguous (naṣṣ) refutation of the Shīʿī understanding of the phrase ‘from myself’ (minnī). In other words, he believes that the phrase ‘from my household’ (min ahl baytī) explicitly and unambiguously shows that the meaning of ‘from myself’ means ‘from the Banū Hāshim.’ However, we have no idea from whence he produces the claim that the phrase ahl al-bayt explicitly and unambiguously denotes the Banū Hāshim. After all, there are countless narrations to the effect that the ahl al-bayt of the Prophet are ʿAlī and Fāṭima and their two sons al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. How then, can he assert that ‘my household’ (ahl baytī) refers to the Banū Hāshim as a whole and then, from that, claim that ‘from myself’ also refers to the Banū Hāshim as a whole? This is an utterly untenable thesis.

17. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Zurāra, Ḥumrān, and Muḥammad ibn Muslim from Imām al-Bāqir and Imām al-Ṣādiq about the verse Travel in the land for four months (): ‘The last twenty days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, the months of Muḥarram, Ṣafar, and Rabīʿ al-Awwal, then the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar.’

Author’s comments: There are countless narrations in Shīʿī collections from the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household to the effect that this is what the phrase four months in the aforementioned verse. This is narrated by al-Kulaynī, al-Ṣadūq, al-ʿAyyāshī, al-Qummī, and others in their works. It has also been narrated in Sunnī collections. However, Sunnīs narrate other traditions that contradict this interpretation, including some which claim that Abū Bakr performed the pilgrimage with the people in the year 9 A.H. during the month of Dhū al-Qaʿda. However, these are unsubstantiated, so we have omitted them.

18. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Ḥakīm ibn Jubayr, from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn, concerning the verse, And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger (): ‘An announcement by the Commander of the Faithful.’

Author’s comments: This meaning has also been narrated by Ḥurayz from Imām al-Ṣādiq, and by Jābir from both him and Imām al-Bāqir. Al-Qummī narrates a tradition from his father, from Faḍḍāla, from Abān ibn ʿUthmān, from Ḥakīm ibn Jubayr, from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn, in which he relates the following words of Imām ʿAlī: ‘I was the one who delivered the announcement to the people.’ Al-Ṣadūq transmits the same via a chain of narrators going back to Ḥakīm from him. It is narrated in al-Durr al-Manthūr from Ibn Abī Ḥātim, from Ḥaīm ibn Ḥamīd, from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, we read: ‘Al-Sudayy and Abū Mālik and Ibn ʿAbbās and Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn say: “The announcement was delivered by ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.”’

19. Also in Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated via al-Ṣadūq, via his chain of narrators from al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAyyāḍ, from Imām al-Ṣādiq. Al-Fuḍayl asked him asked about the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage (). He responded: ‘Do you know anything about it?’ The narrator replied: ‘Yes, Ibn ʿAbbās used to say: The Day of the Greater Pilgrimage is the Day of ʿArafa until sunrise on the Day of Slaughter, meaning that whoever participated in the Day of ʿArafa had participated in the Hajj, but that whoever missed it had missed the Hajj. Therefore, it goes from the eve of ʿArafa until the end of the night that follows it. The evidence for that is that whoever reaches the eve of the Day of Slaughter before sunrise is said to have reached Hajj on time. Therefore, the eve of the Day of Slaughter is considered part of the Day of ʿArafa.’

Then Imām al-Ṣādiq said: ‘The Commander of the Faithful said, “The Day of the Greater Pilgrimage is the Day of Slaughter.” And he supported this with God’s saying: Travel in the land for four months, which is the last twenty days of Dhū al-Ḥijja, the months of Muḥarram, Ṣafar, and Rabīʿ al-Awwal, then the first ten days of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar. If The Day of the Greater Pilgrimage was the Day of ʿArafa, then the idolaters would have been given four months and a day to travel in the land. He further supported this with the passage, and an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage, saying: “I was the one who delivered the announcement to the people.”’

Al-Fuḍayl asked: ‘Then what is the meaning of this phrase, the Greater Pilgrimage (al-Ḥajj al-Akbar)?’ He replied: ‘It is only called “greater” because it took place in the only year in which both the Muslims and the idolaters made the pilgrimage. The idolaters did not perform the Hajj in following years.’

20. In the same source it is narrated from him, via his chain of narrators leading to Muʿāwiya ibn ʿAmmār, who related: ‘I asked Abū ʿAbdallāh about the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage. He said: “The Day of Slaughter and the lesser ʿumra.”’

Author’s comments: In addition to associating the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage with the Day of Slaughter, the above narration also explains why it was called the Day of the “Greater” Pilgrimage. All of the narrations of the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household, barring those which are irregular (shādhdh), say that the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage mentioned in the verse was a reference to the Day of Slaughter, which fell on the tenth of Dhū al-Ḥijja. They narrate this from Imām ʿAlī.

Al-Kulaynī narrates this tradition in al-Kāfī from ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Muʿāwiya ibn ʿAmmār, from Imām al-Ṣādiq. He also narrates it via Dhurayḥ from him, as does Shaykh al-Ṣadūq. Al-ʿAyyāshī narrates it from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Ibn Udhayna, and al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAyyāḍ, from him as well.

21. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from Ibn Mardawayh, from Ibn Abī Awfā, from the Prophet, that he said on ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā: ‘This is the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage.’
22. In the same source, al-Bukhārī, Abū Dāwūd, Ibn Māja, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū Shaykh, Ibn Mardawayh, and Abū Muʿaym in al-Ḥilya narrate from Ibn ʿUmar that the Messenger of God stood on the Day of Slaughter between the stone pillars (jamārāt) while he performed his Hajj pilgrimage and asked of those assembled: ‘What is today?’ They responded: ‘It is the Day of Slaughter.’ He said: ‘Today is the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage.’

Author’s comments: This has been narrated via various routes from ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Mughīra ibn Shuʿba, Abū Juḥayfa, and ʿAbdallāh ibn Abī Awfā. It has also been narrated by various routes from the Prophet that it is the Day of ʿArafa. This has also been narrated from ʿAlī, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Zubayr. Meanwhile, it is narrated from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab that it the day after the Day of Slaughter. It has also been narrated that it is all the days of the pilgrimage, and that it is the pilgrimage in the year that Abū Bakr performed the Hajj. The latter most of these reports is compatible with the tradition reported from Imām al-Ṣādiq, above, in which he said that it was called the Day of the Greater Pilgrimage because it was the year in which the idolaters and the Muslims both made the pilgrimage.

23. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Zurāra, from Imām al-Bāqir, concerning the verse, Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them (): ‘(The period of grace) lasted from the Day of Slaughter to the tenth of Rabīʿ al-Ākhar.
24. In al-Durr al-manthūr, about the verse, Yet if they repent, and maintain the prayer and give the zakāt (), al-Ḥākim narrates and deems authentic a tradition from Muʿab ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from his father: ‘The Messenger of God conquered Mecca, then he went to Ṭāʾif and besieged it for seven or eight consecutive days, then he besieged it alternatively. Then he addressed the inhabitants: “O people, I shall leave this world before you, so I enjoin you to treat my progeny well, your tryst (with me) is at the Pool of Paradise. By He in whose hand is my soul, you will maintain the prayer and pay the zakāt or I shall send upon you a man from myself or like unto myself, and he will strike the necks of your fighters and take captive their progeny.” People thought that he was referring to Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, but then he took the hand of ʿAlī and said: “I will send this one.”’

Author’s comments: He was referring to the disbelievers.

25. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, a tradition narrated by Jābir from Imām al-Bāqir reads: ‘Yet if they repent means: “If they believe, then they are your brethren in faith.”’
26. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, about the verse If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum (), we read: ‘It means you should recite the Qur’an to him and inform him (about the religion), then you should not aggress against him until he has returned to his place of safety.’
27. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated from Ibn Shahrāshūb, from the Tafsīr of al-Qushayrī that a man said to ʿAlī: ‘O Son of Abū Ṭālib! What if one of us wants to meet the Messenger of God concerning some matter after these four months have concluded and he does not have a treaty?’ ʿAlī said: ‘Of course (he can), because God has said If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum ().’
28. In Durr al-Manthūr, about the verse But if they break their pledges after their having made a treaty (), it is narrated from Ibn Abī Shayba and Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh from Ḥudhayfa: that they mentioned this verse to him and he said: ‘The people this verse refers to have not yet been fought.’
29. In the same source, it is narrated from Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Bukhārī, and Ibn Mardawayh, from Zayd ibn Wahb, concerning the verse, then fight the leaders of unfaith (): ‘We were with Ḥudhayfa and he said: “Of the ones referred to by this verse, only three remain, and of the hypocrites, only four.” A Bedouin asked: “You are the Companions of Muḥammad, will you inform us of those matters of which we are unaware? Who are the ones who raid our tends and steal our cattle?” He said: “They are the sinners (fussāq). Yes, only four of them remain. One of them is an old man who if he drank cool water he would not taste its coolness.”’
30. In his Qurb al-Isnād, al-Ḥimyarī narrates from ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd and ʿAbd al-Ṣamad ibn Muḥammad, both from Ḥanān ibn Sudayr, who said: ‘I head Abū ʿAbdallāh (al-Ṣādiq) say: “I was visited by people from Basra. They asked me about Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr. I told them: ‘They were leaders of unfaith. At the Battle of Basra, after he had arrayed his cavalry, ʿAlī said to his companions: “Do not hasten to fight these people until I have exhausted all options between myself, between God, and between them.”

‘“‘So, he stood up in front of them and said: “O people of Basra! Do you find ʿAlī to be a tyrant?” They said: “No.” He asked: “Then a breaker of oaths?” They said: “No.” He said: “Then a man greedy for worldly wealth such that he has monopolized it for himself and his family and denied it to you, so that you have betrayed ʿAlī and broken your oath of allegiance to him?” They said: “No.” He said: “Then did I punish you for crimes for which I pardoned others?” They said: “No.” He said: “Then why did you break your oath of allegiance to me but not to any others? I have looked at this from every side, but I find nothing except disbelief or the sword.”

‘“‘Then ʿAlī turned to his companions and said: “Surely God—Blessed and Exalted!—has said in His Book: But if they break their pledges after their having made a treaty and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unfaith—indeed they have no pledges—maybe they will relinquish.” Then the Commander of the Faithful said: “By He who split the seed, brought forth the creatures, and chose Muḥammad for prophethood, they are the ones about whom this verse was revealed, and they have not been fought since this verse was revealed.”’”’

Author’s comments: Al-ʿAyyāshī also narrates this from Ḥanān ibn Sudayr from Imām al-Ṣādiq.

31. In his Amālī, al-Mufīd narrates via a chain of narrators from Abū ʿUthmān, the muezzin of Banū Quṣayy. He said: ‘I heard ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s speech when Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr rebelled against him. He said: “God has excused me with regard to Ṭalḥa and al-Zubayr. They pledged allegiance to me willingly and without compulsion, then they broke their pledge of allegiance to me without any justification.” Then he recited the verse: But if they break their pledges after their having made a treaty and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unfaith—indeed they have no pledges—maybe they will relinquish.’

Author’s comments: A similar account is also narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī in his Tafsīr from Abū ʿUthmān the Muezzin, Abū al-Ṭufayl, and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī also narrates this from Abū ʿUthmān the Muezzin in his Amālī. In his tradition, Bakīr says: ‘I asked Abū Jaʿfar (al-Bāqir) about this. He said: “The shaykh has spoken truthfully. This is what ʿAlī said. This is how it was.”’

32. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn Isḥāq and al-Bayhaqī in his Dalāʾil narrate from Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam and al-Masrūr ibn Makhrama: ‘In the peace treaty signed between the Messenger of God and the Quraysh on the Day of Ḥudaybiyya, it was stipulated that whoever wished to make a treaty or alliance with the Prophet was free to do so, and whoever wanted to make a treaty or alliance with the Quraysh was free to do so. The Khuzāʿa hastened forth and said: “We will make an alliance with Muḥammad.” Then the Banū Bakr hastened forth and said: “We will make an alliance with the Quraysh.” And this peace endured for about seventeen or eighteen months.

‘Then, the Banū Bakr, who were allies of the Quraysh, launched an attack by night on the Khuzāʿa, who were allies of God’s Messenger, at a well that belonged to them in the vicinity of Mecca known as al-Watīr. The Quraysh imagined that God’s Messenger would not know what had happened under the cover of dark, so they supplied the Bakr with weapons and mounts and, because of the hatred they had towards the Prophet, they even participated directly in the attack on al-Watīr.

‘ʿAmr ibn Sālim rode to Medina with news of what had happened at al-Watīr and addressed the Messenger of God with the following verses of poetry:

“O Lord, I implore Muḥammad / by the oath of our father and his of old,

You were are sons for whom we provided the mother / then we submitted and never withdrew our hand,

So help us, God guide you / and call God’s servants to our aid,

Among them the Messenger of God, sword-drawn / when he is wronged his face becomes overcast with anger,

In a great army heaving like the sea / surely the Quraysh have broken their promise to you,

And they have violated their solemn oath to you / and they tried to prevent me from warning you,

They claim that I will find no one to help us / and they are but a miserable few,

They attacked us by night in al-Watīr / and killed us as we bowed and prostrated.”

‘So the Messenger of God said: “We will come to your aid, O ʿAmr ibn Sālim.” Then, a cloud appeared in the sky and he said: “This cloud shall witness (our) assistance to the Banū Kaʿb.” Then he ordered the people to muster for war (jihād) and to keep their departure a secret. He invoked God and asked Him to blind the Quraysh to his movements so that they might catch them by surprise in their homeland.’

Author’s comments: This narration is reported in al-Durr al-Manthūr, along with accounts from Mujāhid and ʿIkrima about the Quraysh’s violation of the treaty of Ḥudaybiyya and their support for the Banū Bakr against the Messenger of God’s allies the Khuzāʿa. They say that this was the occasion of revelation (sabab al-nuzūl) for the verses Will you not make war on a people who broke their pledges… and heal the hearts of a faithful folk (). The ‘faithful folk’ in this instance are the Khuzāʿa.

If this is indeed accurate, then this would mean that the verse Will you not make war on a people who broke their pledges… and the three subsequent verses () were, in fact, revealed prior to the conquest of Mecca and, therefore, before the verses of repudiation.

However, regarding the account narrated by Ibn Isḥāq and al-Bayhaqī, even if we treat it as authentic because it is narrated by al-Masrūr ibn Makhrama, al-Masrūr’s narration does not explicitly state that the verses in question were revealed in response to this event. Neither can we rely on the account from Mujāhid and ʿIkrima both because it has an incomplete chain of narrators and because the context of these verses does not lend credence to the idea that they were revealed before the conquest of Mecca. These verses are clearly connected to the verses from the beginning of the chapter and thus were revealed at the same time.

As for the verse, who broke their pledges and resolved to expel the Messenger, and opened against you initially, even if the description it contains is especially apt for the Quraysh, it could equally apply to the Quraysh’s allies and neighbors who had not yet converted following the conquest of Mecca. Therefore, because of their solidarity with the Quraysh and relationship with them, the verse ascribes to them the same attributes as the Quraysh originally had.

Know also that there are various narrations in Shīʿī sources from the Prophet’s Household that apply these verses to the circumstances surrounding the advent of Imām al-Mahdi. However, this is an example of extending the meaning of the verses to a new context (al-jarī).

Discourse

The discussions “On the Meaning of ‘Treaty’ (ʿahd), its Types, and Some of its Rules”; “On Attributing Actions to Higher Causes” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.

---

1. There are some narrations which report him saying: ‘None shall enter the Kaʿba—or the House—except a believer,’ in which case the rule understood from this is akin to the rule that no idolater should circumambulate the House. (Trans.) ↩︎

2. In the narration of al-Ḥākim from Musʿab b. ʿAbd al-Raḥman, from his father, from the Prophet—quoted below—he tells the people of Ṭāʾif: ‘By He in whose hand is my soul, you will surely establish the prayer and pay the zakāt, or I will send against you a man from myself’ or ‘a man like myself.’ People thought that when he said this, he meant Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, but then he took the hand of ʿAlī and said: ‘I will send this one,’ to remove any doubts about whom he had meant. (Trans.) ↩︎