Verses 29–35

Chapter 9: Al-Tawbah (The Repentance) · Printed edition: Volume 18, pp. 115–150

These verses command the Muslims to fight the People of the Book so that they pay the tribute (jizya); they also mention different aspects of how the People of the Book have strayed from the truth in both belief and practice.

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ ٢٩

(9:29) Fight those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor practise the religion of truth, from among those who were given the Book, until they pay the tribute out of hand, being humbled.

Based on numerous Qur’anic verses, the People of the Book (or Ahl al-Kitāb) are the Jews and the Christians, as are the Zoroastrians, according to the verse: Indeed the faithful, the Jews, the Sabaeans, the Christians, the Magians and the polytheists—Allah will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is witness to all things (). This is because the verse enumerates all of the heavenly religions in contrast to the idolaters. As we have already mentioned, the Sabeans were a sect of Zoroastrians who were influenced by Judaism and adopted a syncretic system of beliefs based on both traditions.

The context of the verse indicates that the word ‘from’ (min) in the phrase ‘from among those who were given the Book’ is used for exposition (bayān) rather than division (tabʿīḍ). This is because the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are each single communities of faith like the Muslims, even if they have divided into different branches, split into different sects, and intermingled with one another. If, on the other hand, the verse had meant to say that only some of the People of the Book were to be fought while all of them were required to pay tribute, or that only those of them who were to be fought should pay the tribute, the verse would have needed to include further explanation to convey this meaning.

When God says, from among those who were given the Book, this is an exposition of the phrase immediately before it, those who do not have faith in Allah. Therefore, the descriptions given in the verse apply to the entirety of the People of the Book.

There are three attributes God singles out for mention here: They do not believe in God or the Last Day, they do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and they do not follow the religion of truth.

As for the first attribute, those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day, how can this be reconciled with what God has said elsewhere in the Qur’an? For example, He describes the Jews and Christians as ‘People of the Book,’ which means they believe in a holy book that has been sent down from God to one of His messengers. Then, there are hundreds of verses in the Qur’an which quote them either affirming their belief in God or saying things that show they believe in God.

Equally, there are verses which show they believed in the Last Day as well. For instance: And they say, ‘The Fire shall not touch us except for a number of days’ (); or: And they say, ‘No one shall enter paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian’ ().

However, God does not distinguish in the Qur’an between believing in Him and believing in the Last Day, for denying the Last Day means denying God and denying God means denying the Last Day. Likewise, He says that anyone who distinguishes between believing in Him and His messengers, believing in one but not the other, is also a disbeliever: Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and seek to separate Allah from His messengers, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in some’ and seek to take a way in between, it is they who are truly faithless, and We have prepared for the faithless a humiliating punishment (4:150–1).

Therefore, because the People of the Book do not believe in the prophethood of Muḥammad, they are, in fact, disbelievers, even if they believe in God and the Last Day. Note that the Qur’an does not say that they denied one of God’s signs, namely prophethood, rather it says that they disbelieved in God and the Last Day, just as the idolaters are classed as disbelievers in God because they were not monotheists, even if they accepted the existence of a supreme deity.

So, even while they affirm the Creator and the Resurrection, they do so in a way that does not fully accord with the truth. For example, by saying that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Ezra is the Son of God, they are akin to the idolaters and polytheists who say that there is a deity that is the parent of other deities. Similar to this is the belief of the Jews that they will only be punished for a short time and the belief of the Christians that Christ’s sacrifice has absolved them of their sins.

Therefore, when God says that the People of the Book do not believe in Him or the Last Day, it appears that this is because they do not perceive the truths of monotheism and the Resurrection, even if they affirm their belief in God. This is because, according to the Qur’an’s own account, some of them espouse doctrines that contradict God’s divinity or contradict the Resurrection (although the Torah today does not contain any mention of the Resurrection whatsoever).

The second attribute assigned to them in this verse is that they do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. This refers to the things that the Jews consider permissible that the Qur’an enumerates in Sūrah al-Baqarah, Sūrah al-Nisāʾ, and elsewhere, or that the Christians consider wine and the flesh of swine permissible even though they are both forbidden in the teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Muḥammad and their embezzling people’s wealth falsely, of which they are accused in the subsequent verse: Indeed many of the scribes and monks wrongfully eat up the people’s wealth ().

The word messenger (rasūl) in the phrase nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden could refer to their own messengers who they accept, such as Moses for the Jews and Jesus for the Christians. In this case, it means that each of the two nations does not forbid itself what their own messenger forbade them, even though they recognise him as a messenger and affirm their belief in the truth of his message. And this is an act of brazen disrespect for God and His messenger and an example of their treating the truth like a plaything.

Alternatively, ‘messenger’ could refer to the Prophet Muḥammad, whose mission they find prophesied in their own scriptures, the Torah and the Evangel, and who permits them all good things, forbids them only from uncleanliness, and removes the shackles and fetters that were upon them. In this case, the Qur’an calls attention to their failure to forbid what God and His Messenger had declared forbidden in order to reprimand and criticise them. It is also to encourage the faithful to fight against them for disregarding what God and His Messenger had forbidden in their religion and for disrespecting God’s boundaries.

This second reading is perhaps supported by the fact that if, when God said ‘messenger,’ he meant the messenger of each nation, such as Moses for the Jews and Jesus for the Christians, then it would have been more befitting to say, ‘They do not forbid what God and His messengers forbade,’ which is the habit of the Qur’an in such contexts, because this points to the multitude of messengers. For example, see the following verses:

They… seek to separate Allah from His messengers ()

Their messengers said, ‘Is there any doubt about Allah…?’ ()

Their messengers brought them manifest proofs ().

Because the Christians rejected the prohibitions of the Torah and the Evangel, they did not forbid what either Moses or Jesus had forbidden, and if this is what is meant by the verse then it would not be correct to say that they did not forbid what Allah and His Messenger (singular) have forbidden.

Moreover, when one reflects on the general aims of Islam, they will have no doubt that the ordinance to fight the People of the Book until they pay tribute (jizya) was not revealed to bring worldly benefit to the Muslims and their allies or so that they could live lives of luxury and enjoyment in the manner of the kings and noblemen of different nations. On the contrary, the goal of the religion is to make truth, justice, and piety triumph over falsehood, tyranny, and immorality. This is so that people will not be distracted by transitory desires on their journey towards God, so they can receive a beneficial moral education without being led astray by false teachings, and so they do not find themselves being pulled in different directions. Otherwise, the human order would collapse. Of course, if one or more people do not want to receive the teachings of Islam, then they should be allowed to be free to choose their own religion, so long as it is a religion of monotheism, such as Judaism, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism, and so long as they do not oppose Islam openly. This shows the utmost justice and fairness of the religion of truth that triumphs over all others.

As for the tribute—or jizya—this is a monetary tax taken from them in return for maintaining their protected status—or dhimma—and to look after their needs, and this sort of taxation is something no government can do without, whether it is based on truth or falsehood.

From the above explanation, it is evident that what is meant by these forbidden things are those things forbidden in Islam, which God has determined should not be allowed to spread within global Islamic society, and what is meant by the religion of truth (dīn al-ḥaqq) is the teachings that God has determined should be followed in that society.

Therefore, these forbidden things are those that have been forbidden by God and His Messenger Muḥammad, who brought the message of Islam to the world, and the three attributes that are mentioned in the verse— who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day, and so on—are intended explain the rationale for fighting the People of the Book.

This, in turn, demonstrates the error of those who argue: ‘It is irrational for the People of the Book to forbid themselves those things that God and His Messenger have forbidden to us, unless they embrace Islam, as this verse is about the People of the Book, not sinful Muslims.’

The answer to this argument is that the goal of fighting them is not that they forbid what Islam has forbidden while still following their own religion, rather it is that they do not openly do things that Islam has forbidden in society without there being some barrier to prevent these spreading or to prevent others from doing them without restraint, such as openly drinking wine, eating the flesh of swine, embezzling the money of others. Therefore, the purpose of fighting them is so that they come under Islam’s protection (dhimma) and do not openly perform such acts in public. This means that the evil of these acts is contained amongst themselves only.

Perhaps this is what the verse means when it says they should pay the tribute out of hand, being humbled (wa hum ṣāghirūn), as we will discuss when we come to the end of the verse.

The third attribute of theirs that God highlights is that they do not practise the religion of truth, meaning they do not take it as their own religion or way of life.

However, the possessive construct, dīn al-ḥaqq (lit. ‘religion of truth’), is not a case of placing a noun in a possessive construct with its adjective, which would render the meaning ‘the religion of truth.’ On the contrary, this is a literal possessive construct, meaning the religion that belongs to the truth, because it embodies the truth that God has decreed for humankind and propels them towards it; it guides people to the truth and those who follow it reach the truth. Therefore, the phrase ‘religion of truth’ is similar in meaning to ‘the path of truth’ (ṭarīq al-ḥaqq) or ‘the path of error’ (ṭarīq al-ḍalāl) in the sense that these are routes that lead to truth or error, meaning that the destination of the former path is the truth, while the destination of the latter is error.

This meaning can be grasped form other verses of the Qur’an, such as: So set your countenance upon the religion as a people of pure faith, the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind. There is no altering Allah’s creation; that is the upright religion, but most people do not know (); and: Indeed, with Allah religion is Islam (). These and other verses like them all affirm that the teachings of this religion are rooted in the fundamental realities of the cosmos, which the Prophet calls people towards and bids them to follow. Adopting these teachings as a way of life is called ‘submission to God’ (islām lillāh). Therefore, the Prophet is calling humanity to something that they have no excuse not to accept and submit to, namely following the practical moral programme towards which the very realities of the cosmos point. Or, to put it another way, submitting to God’s moral will (al-irādā al-tashrīʿiyya) stems from submitting to his cosmic will (al-irāda al-takwīniyya).

In short, objective reality has a religion and a way of life that emanates from it and calls people towards it just as falsehood and error have a religion that they call towards. The former is following the truth, while the latter is following one’s own desires: Had the Truth followed their desires, the heavens and the earth would have surely fallen apart ().

Therefore, when we refer to Islam as ‘the religion of truth’ (dīn al-ḥaqq), this means that its teachings are rooted in the cosmic order, that its path corresponds with the realities of creation, and that we are drawn towards it by the God-given nature (fiṭra), with which all human beings are endowed. There is no altering Allah’s creation; that is the upright religion.

From the above, we can conclude the following:

Firstly, that when the Qur’an says the People of the Book do not believe in God or the Last Day, this means they have not adopted the faith that is acceptable to God; when it says they do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, this means they do not care about openly committing sins that are harmful to human society and that undermine the efforts of the government of truth that rules over it; and when it says they do not follow the religion of truth, this means that they do not follow the true way of life that is in harmony with both their own God-given nature and with the fundamental realities of the cosmos.

Secondly, that when God says, those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day—along with the other attributes He assigns to them—this is intended to explain the rationale behind the command to fight them, while also giving the Muslims encouragement and motivation to do so.

Thirdly, that this refers to fighting the People of the Book altogether, not only some of them, as the preposition ‘from’ (min) in the phrase ‘from among those who were given the Book’ is for exposition (bayān) rather than division (tabʿīḍ).

As for the end of the verse: …until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand, being humbled (ṣāghirūn), al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says in his Mufradāt: ‘Jizya is the payment taken from the Protected Peoples (ahl al-dhimma). It is called jizya because it is given in repayment for their safety and legal protection.’

In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘Jizya is a noun on the pattern of fiʿla that is derived from the verb jazā, yajzī (“to repay, to compensate”), like ʿiqda or jilsa, and it is a tax that they pay in recompense for their remaining disbelievers, as a penalty. This is narrated from ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā.’

Al-Rāghib’s interpretation appears more reliable because it is confirmed by what we have already said previously about jizya being a tax paid in return for their protection and the provision of services to them.

Al-Rāghib also says: ‘Ṣughr (smallness) and kibr (largeness) are relative opposites, where their usage always implies a comparison. For example, something might be small compared to one thing but large compared to something else… however, smallness (ṣighr) can also be used to denote abasement (dhilla), equally one can be said to be ‘small’ (ṣāghir) if they are satisfied with a low station: …until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand (ʿan yad), being humbled (ṣāghirūn).’

Based on the attributes of the People of the Book that were mentioned at the beginning of the verse, which provided the rationale for fighting them, and the mention of them paying tribute in exchange for protection and security at its end, it appears that ‘humbled’ (ṣāghirūn) means that they have submitted themselves to the Islamic way of life and the just religious government of Islamic society. Therefore, they will not compete with the Muslims for precedence in that society or oppose them by propagating their own desires in the form of their false doctrines and practices that are harmful to human society. At the same time, paying this tribute out of hand, as specified by the verse, symbolizes this inferiority.

Therefore, based on the apparent meaning of the verse, the meaning of humbled is not that the Muslims or the agents of the religious government should humiliate or mock them, for this is utterly beneath the dignity of Islam, even if some commentators on the Qur’an have suggested this meaning.

The word yad (‘hand’) literally denotes the human limb but can also refer to a person’s power or blessings. If the word ‘hand’ in until they pay the tribute out of hand is used in the literal sense, then this means: ‘until they pay the tribute out of their hand and into yours.’ If, on the other hand, it is used in the second sense, then this means: ‘until they pay the tribute because of your power and authority over them and they are humbled, meaning they are neither obstinate nor arrogant toward you.’

Therefore, the meaning of the full verse is as follows: ‘Fight the People of the Book, because they do not believe in God and the Last Day in a way that is acceptable to God and which has not deviated from the right path; nor do they forbid those things that Islam has forbidden because they are harmful to human society; nor do they follow a religion that is in harmony with the divinely instituted cosmic order of things. So, fight them and continue to fight them until you have cowed them and they submit to your authority and they pay you the financial tribute you impose upon them that is commensurate with their inferior status. Spend this tribute on providing them with security, maintaining their safety, and managing their affairs.’

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ۖ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ ۖ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ ۚ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ ۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ ٣٠

(9:30) The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say, ‘Christ is the son of Allah.’ That is an opinion that they mouth, imitating (yuḍāhiʾūn) the opinions of the faithless of former times. May Allah assail them, where do they stray (yuʾfakūn)?

Muḍāhāt (‘imitation’) means to emulate or mimic something.

According to al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, ifk (‘straying’) refers to anything that has been diverted from its proper course. Hence, yuʾfakūn here means that they have been diverted in their beliefs from truth to falsehood.

The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah’: The Arabic name for Ezra is ʿUzayr; its pronunciation changed when it entered Arabic. The same is true of Yeshua (Jesus), which became ʿĪsā, and Yochanan (John), which became Yaḥyā.

Ezra was the reviver of the Jewish faith who gathered the books of the Torah and wrote them as a single book after they had been lost when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, conquered their land. He had destroyed their temple; burned their books; massacred their men; and enslaved their women, children, and the weak, and taken them back to Babylon, where they remained in captivity for close to a century. When Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon, Ezra went to him to intercede on behalf of his people. Because Cyrus held Ezra in some esteem, he allowed him to return with his people to their homeland and to reproduce the Torah for them. Historians say that this transpired around the year 457 B.C. So, the Torah compiled by Ezra spread amongst the Israelites. However, it was lost once again in around 161 B.C. when the Seleucid king Antiochus VI conquered their lands and persecuted them, razing their homes, burning their books, and massacring all who he could lay his hands upon.

In any case, the great service that Ezra performed for the Israelites meant that he was greatly revered and respected amongst them, to the extent that they called him ‘the Son of God.’ It is not clear whether they meant this in the same sense as the Christians did for Jesus—in the sense that he contained some substance of divinity, or that he was an emanation of God, or that he was one and the same as God—or whether this was merely a term of respect and veneration, as when they say: we are Allah’s sons and His beloved ones (). However, the context of the following verse—They have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah, and also Christ, Mary’s son ()—would seem to suggest the latter was the case, as we shall discuss.

Some commentators on the Qur’an have said that the claim that Ezra was the son of God was only made by some of the Jews at the time of the Prophet, not by all of them. Equally, it was only some Jews in Medina at the time of the Prophet who said: Allah is poor and we are rich (); and Allah’s hand is tied up (). However, God ascribes these words to them in general because there were others who tacitly approved of the word and deeds of others because, in reality, they were all of the same opinion and orientation.

… and the Christians say, ‘Christ is the son of Allah’: This is a doctrine of the Christians. We have already discussed this in our treatment of the story of Jesus in Sūrah Āl ʿImrān.

… imitating the opinions of the faithless of former times: This passage calls attention to the fact that their claim that Jesus was the son of God mimicked the beliefs of earlier disbelieving nations who worshipped idols and who believed in some deities who were parents of others, such that there were fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, sons, and daughters amongst the gods. The same is true of the doctrine of the trinity, which bears a resemblance to the teachings of the polytheistic religions of ancient Egypt, India, and China. We have already discussed this in our commentary on the story of Jesus in Sūrah Āl ʿImrān.

We have also mentioned there how the beliefs of polytheists and idolaters found their way into the Christian and Jewish faiths, which is something the Qur’an alludes to in the present verse when it accuses them of imitating the opinions of the faithless of former times.

Many contemporary scholars have examined the influences of the Buddhist and Hindu faiths on the contents of the Tanakh (or Old Testament) and the New Testament, and they have found instances where the teachings of these scriptures follow those of Buddhism and Hinduism almost step-by-step—even many of the stories and parables contained in the New Testament. Therefore, no one can be in doubt that the Qur’an is accurate in its description of them as ‘imitating.’

Then the Qur’an closes the verse by invoking a prayer against them, May Allah assail them.

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا ۖ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ٣١

(9:31) They have taken their scribes (aḥbār) and their monks (ruhbān) as lords besides Allah, and also Christ, Mary’s son; though they were commanded to worship only the One Allah, there is no Allah except Him; immaculate is He above the partners that they ascribe!

Aḥbār (‘scribes’) is the plural of ḥibr (also spelled ḥabr) and denotes a scholar; it is commonly used to denote Jewish scholars. Ruhbān (‘monks’) is the plural of rāhib and it refers to those who don robes of piety. It is commonly used to denote Christian ascetics.

When the Qur’an accuses the Jews and Christians of taking their scribes and monks as lords besides God, this means that they listen to them and obey them unquestioningly, when only God is worthy of such obedience.

As for their taking Jesus son of Mary as a lord besides God, this is because the Christians ascribe divinity to him in the way that is common to most Christian sects. The Qur’an refers to Jesus as the ‘son of Mary’ to emphasise his humanity and show the error of the Christians worshipping him as God when, in fact, he is a man born of a woman like any other.

Note the difference between the way in which the Jews and the Christians take their scribes and monks as lords besides God and the way in which the Christians take Jesus as a lord besides God. This is why the Qur’an has mentioned the two separately, beginning with the scribes and monks, then adding: and also Christ, Mary’s son.

Moreover, in the same way that the verse indicates that there are two different conceptions of lordship (rubūbiyya) at work here, it highlights that there are two different conceptions of divine sonship (bunuwwa) present as well: In the case of Ezra, this is meant as an honorary sonship (bunuwwa tashrīfiyya), whereas in the case of Jesus it is meant somewhat literally. This distinction is brought into view by the fact that the present verse accuses the Christians of turning Jesus into a lord besides God, but it does not do the same to the Jews with regard to Ezra, mentioning only that they took their scribes and monks as lords besides God.

Therefore, Ezra could only be a lord (rabb) in their eyes if this was implied by his being a ‘son of God’ or because he was a scribe and he had performed a virtually incomparable service to their faith by restoring it after it had been destroyed. As for Jesus, when the Christians refer to him as the ‘son of God,’ they mean this in a different sense entirely.

…though they were commanded to worship only one Allah: This sentence is adverbial, meaning: ‘They took them as lords even though they were commanded to worship only the One Allah.’

This statement shows, first of all, that taking someone as a lord by obeying them is the same as taking someone as a lord by worshipping them. To obey someone unquestioningly is to worship them, therefore, it follows that a lord who is obeyed absolutely and unconditionally is tantamount to a god (ilāh), for a god is one who is worshipped and who is worthy of worship. This is illustrated by the fact that God says, though they were commanded to worship only one Allah, which substitutes ‘lord’ (rabb) for ‘god.’ On the other hand, if there was a distinction between the two, it would have been more appropriate to say: ‘though they were commanded to take only one lord.’ This shows that taking someone as a lord by giving them your absolute obedience is the same as taking them as a lord by making them an object of worship, in both cases you are taking them as a deity besides God.

Second, it shows that when the Qur’an calls on people to worship God alone—for example, in the verses: There is no Allah except Me; so worship Me (); So do not invoke any Allah besides Allah (); and others—this not only means to restrict worship (ʿibāda) to God in the conventional sense of the word, it also means to restrict obedience (ṭāʿa) to Him. This is evident from the Qur’an, because it rebukes them for their blind obedience to their scribes and monks by saying: though they were commanded to worship only one Allah, and nothing else.

This reading is further supported by the verse: Did I not exhort you, O children of Adam, saying: ‘Do not worship Satan. He is indeed your manifest enemy. Worship Me. That is a straight path’? (). And behind this door lies a thousand others.

As for His saying: …there is no Allah except Him, this represents the completion of the message of the previous phrase, though they were commanded to worship only one Allah, as even though the idol worshippers believed in the existence of a multitude of gods, some of them would only worship one of these. However, worshipping only one god is not monotheism unless you also believe that there is no god besides him.

Hence, this verse deals with both forms of worship at the same time while still acknowledging the differences between them. It also shows that the way in which human beings must submit to God is by dedicating both forms of worship to Him. For example, God commands His Prophet to summon the People of the Book to worship Him with the following: Say, ‘O People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you: that we will worship no one but Allah, and that we will not ascribe any partner to Him, and that we will not take each other as lords besides Allah.’ But if they turn away, say, ‘Be witnesses that we are those who submit to Allah’ ().

The coda of the verse, immaculate is He above the partners that they ascribe, declares that He is exalted above their claims of lordship for their scribes and monks, or indeed their associating Jesus with him as a partner in divinity.

Therefore, the present verse serves as an explanation of the earlier statement, those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day (). After all, the fact that they have taken a god or gods besides God is not compatible with truly believing in Him nor in believing in the Last Day, on which there will be no sovereignty besides God’s.

يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَيَأْبَى اللَّهُ إِلَّا أَنْ يُتِمَّ نُورَهُ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ ٣٢

(9:32) They desire to put out (yuṭfiʾū) the light of Allah with their mouths (bi afwāhihim), but Allah is intent on perfecting His light though the faithless should be averse.

Yuṭfiʾū (‘to put out’) means to extinguish a light or a flame, and the preposition bi in bi afwāhihim (‘with their mouths’) signifies the means or the reason by which they extinguish this light.

The verse mentions their mouths because people blow through their mouths in order to extinguish a lamp or candle. In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes: ‘This is an example of eloquent speech because it belittles them and exposes the feebleness of their efforts, as one can only affect the weakest of lights with one’s mouth rather than great blazes.’

In al-Kashshāf, al-Zamakhsharī says: ‘Their efforts to refute the prophethood of Muḥammad through their denials are akin to someone trying to extinguish a light that illuminates the horizon and that God wishes to increase so that it reaches its full brightness and brilliance by blowing on it.’ Therefore, the verse illustrates powerfully the condition of the Islamic mission at this point in history as well as what the faithless aimed to do to it. Likewise, the verse also contains a beautiful promise from God that He will complete His light in spite of their efforts.

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ ٣٣

(9:33) It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance (hudā) and the religion of truth (dīn al-ḥaqq), that He may make it prevail over all religions, though the polytheists should be averse.

Hudā (‘guidance’) refers to the divine guidance that was sent down with the Messenger of God to guide mankind by God’s command; the dīn al-ḥaqq (‘religion of truth’) is Islam, insofar as the teachings and rules of Islam correspond to objective reality.

Hence, this verse means that God is the one who sent His Messenger—Muḥammad—with guidance—in the form of clear signs and manifest proofs—and the religion of human nature (fiṭra), that He might make His religion—which is the religion of truth—triumph over all other religions, even if the idol worshippers are averse to this.

Based on this, it is plain that the pronoun ‘it’ in the phrase ‘make it prevail’ refers to the religion of truth, which is also indicated by the context. Some commentators might suggest that the pronoun actually refers to the Prophet—as in, ‘make him prevail’—in which case it would mean: ‘To make His Messenger victorious and educate him with all the teachings of the religion.’ However, this is an extremely unlikely meaning for the verse.

Together, this and the previous verse clearly encourage the faithful to fight the People of the Book and indicate that this is a religious duty they must carry out. Both verses show that God wishes this religion to spread to all mankind, and this requires effort and struggle. At the same time, the People of the Book wish to extinguish this divine light with their mouths, so there is no option but to fight them until they are no more or until they hasten to pay tribute and submit themselves. After all, God will not accept any outcome other than to complete His light, and He wants this religion to triumph over all religions. It is God’s will that the Muslims should triumph over their enemies. Therefore, they should not slacken or grieve, for they have the upper hand, if they are truly believers.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْأَحْبَارِ وَالرُّهْبَانِ لَيَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَيَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُمْ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ ٣٤

(9:34) O you who have faith! Indeed many of the scribes and monks wrongfully eat up the people’s wealth, and bar from the way of Allah. And those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give tidings to them of a painful punishment.

It appears that this verse is an explanation of what was said at the beginning of this section: nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor practise the religion of truth (), in the same way that the previous verse provided an explanation of the clause immediately before it: those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day.

This verse explains nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden by saying: Indeed many of the scribes and monks wrongfully eat up the people’s wealth. In doing so, it provides the most egregious and persuasive example of how they corrupt human society and undermine the goals of religion.

The Qur’an enumerates in detail the wrongdoings and misdeeds of the People of the Book, especially the Israelites, in Sūrah al-Baqarah, Sūrah al-Nisāʾ, Sūrah al-Māʾida, and in its other chapters. However, wrongdoings and transgressions involving money have a special status, especially when discussing how the People of the Book cause corruption in righteous human societies when they are given a free hand and able to do as they please, for there is no force of corruption greater than monetary transgressions.

This is because one of the most important foundations upon which the edifice of human society rests is that of the economy, which God has made a source of social stability. If we analyze the majority of crimes, transgressions, and injustices that people commit, they stem from one of two causes. The first is extreme poverty, which leads people to covet the wealth of others through theft, banditry, murder, cheating in the marketplace, usurping other’s property, and so on. The second is extreme wealth, which leads a person to spend extravagantly on food, drink, clothing, accommodation, and marriage, to become consumed by their desires, overstep the bounds of decency, and to infringe on the life, property, and dignity of others.

Now, if we examine the different forms of corruption that step from these two extremes of wealth, we see that each of them has a negative impact on the system that manages the acquisition and ownership of property, and on the laws promulgated to distinguish between licit and illicit ways of consuming wealth. If this system of ownership breaks down, then people allow themselves to claim whatever property they can lay their hands on and accumulate wealth by any way possible, regardless of whether or not it is right for them to do so. Equally, they will look to satisfy their every selfish whim and desire without regard to its morality or lack thereof, no matter the consequences of this. This, in turn, generates a crisis of corruption in society and the spread of moral decadence. Society is transformed from a human environment to a base animal one that is governed solely by the stomach and whatever lies beneath it. In such a society, no one has any interest in politics or education, and no one gives any thought to wisdom or heeds any moral warnings.

Perhaps this is why God singles out embezzling people’s wealth for mention here, especially when this is done by the scribes and monks who are supposed to be sources of moral education for their people and agents of reform in society.

Some have explained that the monks and scribes embezzled wealth by taking the money people donated to them because of their appearance of piety and asceticism, by charging usury, gaining wealth by illicit means, confiscating their opponents’ property, or taking bribes as judges, and by selling indulgences or certificates that promised the bearer entry into heaven.

The apparent meaning of the verse is that it refers to their taking bribes as judges, as we have already discussed in our commentary on the verse: O Messenger! Do not grieve for those who are active in unfaith (). And, even if this were not the case and the verse was only referring to the practice of the Church in selling indulgences, this by itself would be sufficiently abhorrent to merit such condemnation.

As for the idea that this wealth was given to them in the form of donations because of their asceticism and piety, or in the form of pious endowments, wills, and bequests, this does not count as wrongfully eating up people’s wealth. Equally, God has attributed usury and earning wealth illicitly to the People of the Book in general, and not only their clergy: and for their taking usury—though they had been forbidden from it—and for eating up the wealth of the people wrongfully (), and Eavesdroppers with the aim of telling lies, eaters of the unlawful (), whereas, in the present verse, God is concerned with the wrongdoing that is specific to the scribes and monks. Therefore, God’s condemnation of their embezzlement of people’s wealth is not a condemnation of something that includes the ordinary people.

It is the spiritual leaders of a community and their religious scholars who are supposed to teach them how to worship God and encourage them to reform their hearts and their deeds. When these individuals go astray and abandon the path of truth for that of falsehood, the truth is that whatever livelihood they earn or benefits they acquire after this are ill-gotten and illicit, and forbidden to them by both reason and religion.

Returning to the verse at hand, it also explains nor practise the religion of truth () by saying: and bar from the way of Allah. This is also based on the three attributes that God ascribed to them previously, the third of which is that they do not practise the religion of truth. This explains how their attributes and their deeds harm human society and impede the aims of the just religious government, namely to bring about moral reform in people and create a society that is alive and flourishing in a way that agrees with the human being’s innate nature (fiṭra) and directs him towards his natural happiness (saʿāda).

This is why, out of all the various vices that He could mention, God singles out the fact that they do not practise the religion of truth, because it is the most destructive to human society: They use all of their powers and expend whatever resources they have, both apparent and hidden, to bar others from the way of God and prevent them from following it, and they have been doing this since the time of the Prophet down to the present day.

As for His saying, and those who treasure up (yaknizūn) gold and silver, and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give tidings to them of a painful punishment, al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says: ‘Kanz (“to treasure up”) means to pile coins on top of one another and hoard them. It originally meant to store dates in a container; the kannāz season is the time of year in which dates are stored. At the same time, a camel is called kannāz when it has been fattened up. As for the verse, and those who treasure up gold and silver, this means that they hoard them.’

Therefore, the use of the word kanz conveys the idea of hoarding wealth and preventing it from flowing freely between people in various kinds of dealings. Such a movement of wealth from one person to another would allow it to grow in a way that was beneficial not only to individuals but to society as a whole. Before the emergence of banks and treasuries, people would bury their hoarded treasure in the ground to keep it safe from those who would seek to deprive them of it.

Textually speaking, this verse is connected to the previous verses that criticise the People of the Book and rebuke their scribes and monks for devouring people’s wealth falsely and barring others from the way of God. However, it contains no indication whatsoever in its wording that it was revealed about them alone or that its meaning was specific to them. Therefore, one cannot argue that this verse only applies to the People of the Book and that they are forbidden from hoarding wealth but that Muslims are free to pile up gold and silver and do with their property as they please without compunction.

On the contrary, this verse delivers a stern warning to those who hoard their wealth and threatens them with a severe punishment. However, the verse also clarifies what is condemnable about those who treasure up gold and silver, namely that they do not spend it in the way of Allah. Therefore, what God detests about hoarding is when it leads a person to not spend his wealth in His way when he is confronted with an opportunity to do so.

Based on what we read in the Qur’an, the way of God (sabīl Allāh) refers to whatever the religion of God depends upon for its security and stability. For example: waging jihād, protecting the essential interests of the religion, looking after the social affairs of Muslims without which society would collapse, and paying one’s religious dues through which the religion strengthens the foundations of the religious community. Therefore, those who treasure up gold and silver while there are essential needs not being met have hoarded their wealth and not spent it in the way of God. Those people, God says, should be given tidings of a painful punishment, for they have given preference to themselves over their Lord and placed their own needs or those of potential future offspring before the very real and present needs of the religious community.

This can also be understood from the contents of the next verse, especially the line which reads: This is what you treasured up for yourselves! (). There, God rebukes them for keeping their wealth to themselves because they feared they might one day need it rather than spending it in God’s way, which is the very lifeblood of human society in both this world and the Hereafter. And, in doing so, they have also betrayed God and His Messenger in another way: through concealing their wealth and keeping it hidden. Had they made known their wealth and allowed it to flow freely, perhaps the one in authority would have told them to spend it for a particularly pressing religious cause. However, because they hoarded their wealth and kept it hidden from others, the one in authority did not say anything about it, so the urgent need was not met as a result. In other words, there was hoarded wealth sitting idle when it was the one way to alleviate this need, while the one who hoarded it had no need of it at that time.

Therefore, the verse only condemns people for amassing wealth when this means that they prefer to keep it for themselves when they have no need of it instead of spending it in the way of God when there is an urgent need to do so. The reader should not imagine that Islam limits the right of ownership to a certain quantity of wealth. On the contrary, someone might have vast quantities of gold and silver but, instead of treasuring them up, makes use of them. Had the person who hoarded his wealth done this, he would have benefited from many times over, while also benefitting others through buying and selling, through employing others, through investing, or through some other means. In any case, someone who makes use of their wealth is not subject to this religious prohibition, because instead of trying to keep it hidden from others, he has used this wealth in a way that promotes economic growth and brings benefit to himself and others. He has not concealed it or prevented it from being used in the way of God. In fact, even if he doesn’t spend it in the way of God, this condemnation still does not apply to him, because the ruler of the Muslims can always command him to spend in God’s way as he seems necessary. Therefore, even if he does not spend in God’s way, so long as he makes no attempt to conceal his wealth, he is neither a traitor nor a wrongdoer.

On the contrary, the verse in question only concerns hoarded wealth whose owner avoids paying his religious dues from it. This is not only in the sense of obligatory religious taxes, rather it includes both them and any urgent need that religious society has, such as waging jihād, saving lives, or the like thereof.

There are also recommended (mustaḥabb) ways of spending in the way of God, such as spending it on one’s dependants or giving it to poor persons to use for something more than their basic needs. However, while these fall within the category of ‘spending in the way of God,’ the same evidences that show they are recommended reveal that they are not what is meant by ‘spending in the way of God’ in the verse under discussion. Keeping one’s wealth and not spending it on something recommended in the absence of something necessary to spend it is not the kind of ‘treasuring up’ that is forbidden by the verse, as can be seen from the verse itself.

Lengthy theological debates have also taken place amongst commentators regarding this verse, and we will address these after our discussion of the narrations relating to the current section of verses.

When God says, give tidings to them of a painful punishment, this is an explicit threat of punishment, which shows the severity of the prohibition.

يَوْمَ يُحْمَىٰ عَلَيْهَا فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ فَتُكْوَىٰ بِهَا جِبَاهُهُمْ وَجُنُوبُهُمْ وَظُهُورُهُمْۖ هَٰذَا مَا كَنَزْتُمْ لِأَنْفُسِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا مَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْنِزُونَ ٣٥

(9:35) on the day when these shall be heated (yuḥmā ʿalayhā) in hellfire and therewith branded (tukwā bihā) on their foreheads, their sides and their backs: ‘This is what you treasured up for yourselves! So taste what you have treasured!’

The verb iḥmāʾ (‘to heat’) means to make something hot enough to cause a person discomfort, and when it is made transitive with the preposition ʿalā (lit. ‘upon’) it means to light a fire upon something until it becomes hot. Kawā—from which the verb takwā (‘to brand or cauterise’) is derived—means to press something hot against a body.

Therefore, the verse means: ‘That painful punishment you are to give them tidings of is that those treasures will be heated in the fires of hell until they become burning hot. Then they will be pressed into the foreheads, sides, and backs of those who hoarded them. Then they will be told: “This is what you treasured up for yourselves! So taste what you have treasured!” for those treasures have become a source of punishment for them in the Hereafter.’

Note that God specifically mentions their forehead, sides, and backs. This might be symbolic: For example, they lowered and abased themselves for these treasures, and one prostrates with one’s forehead; they sought shelter with them, and one seeks shelter with one’s side; and they relied on them, and one leans on something with one’s back.

Examining Narrations

1. In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates via his chain from Ḥafṣ b. Ghayyāth from Imām al-Ṣādiq, in the Tradition of the Swords (ḥadīth al-asyāf) that he quotes from his father: ‘As for the swords, they are three in number: The first sword is against the Arab idolaters. God says: kill the polytheists wherever you find them (). The second sword is against the followers of the protected faiths (ahl al-dhimma). God revealed about them the verse: and speak kindly to people (), then He abrogated this with the verse: Fight those who do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor practise the religion of truth, from among those who were given the Book, until they pay the tribute out of hand, being humbled (). So, those of them who lived within the realm of Islam (dār al-Islām) had a choice to either pay tribute (jizya) or be slain and their properties confiscated, and their families were enslaved. But, if they paid the tribute, then their lives, properties, and families were respected, and we could intermarry with them. However, those of them who lived in the realm of war (dār al-ḥarb) could be enslaved and their properties seized, but we could not marry them. They had the choice between entering the realm of Islam, paying the jizya, or being killed.’
2. In the same source, it is narrated from Ṭalḥa b. Zayd from Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘It was the practice of the Prophet (sunna) not to take tribute from people with mental impairments (al-maʿtūh) or who lacked good sense (al-maghlūb ʿalā ʿaqlihi).’
3. In the same source, it is narrated from Abū Yaḥyā al-Wāsiṭī, from some of his colleagues that Imām al-Ṣādiq was asked about the Magians (Zoroastrians): ‘Do they have rights?’ He said: ‘Yes, have you not read in the letter of the Messenger of God to the people of Mecca: “Submit or else I shall declare war upon you!” They wrote back to the Messenger of God: “Take tribute from us instead and leave us to worship our idols.” The Prophet wrote back to them: “I only take tribute from the People of the Book.” So they wrote back to him, seeking to expose him as a liar, saying: “You claim that you only take tribute from the People of the Book, but you have accepted tribute from the Magians of Hajar.” The Prophet replied: “The Magians had a prophet who they killed and a scripture which they burned. Their prophet brought their scripture to them written on twelve thousand ox hides.”’

Author’s comments: There are many other traditions found in the collections with the same meaning as this one. The full discussion of matters relating to the jizya (tribute), kharāj (land tax), and other topics is for the books of jurisprudence.

4. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, al-Suyūṭī narrates from Ibn ʿAsākir, from Abū Umāma, from the Messenger of God: ‘There are two kinds of fighting: Fighting against the idolaters until they believe or until they pay the tribute out of hand, being humbled, and fighting the aggressing faction until they return to the command of God, and when they do, you treat them justly.’
5. In the same source, he narrates from Ibn Abī Shayba, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū al-Shaykh, and al-Bayhaqī’s Sunan from Mujāhid about the verse, fight those who do not have faith in Allah (): ‘This was revealed when Muḥammad and his Companions were ordered to launch an expedition to Tabūk.’

Author’s comments: As we have already seen in the narrations concerning the event of Mubāhila, the Prophet imposed tribute upon the Christians of Najrān. Based on the contents of these narrations, this appears to have taken place in the year 6 A.H., two years before the expedition to Tabūk. His call to the rulers of Rome, Egypt, and Persia—all of whom were likewise People of the Book—also took place in that year.

6. In the same source, al-Suyūṭī narrates from Ibn Abī Shayba from al-Zuhrī: ‘The Messenger of God accepted the payment of tribute from the Magians who lived in Hajar, and the Jews and Christians of Yemen, taking one dinar for each adult male.’
7. In the same source, he narrates from Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū ʿUbayd’s Kitāb al-Amwāl, and Ibn Abī Shayba from Jaʿfar, from his father, that ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb asked people’s advice concerning taking tribute from the Magians. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf told him: ‘I heard the Messenger of God say: “Treat them in the same manner as you treat the People of the Book.”’
8. In the same source, it is narrated from ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that he was asked about taking tribute from the Magians, and he said: ‘By God, there is no one on the earth today more knowledgeable about this than me. The Magians were a people with a scripture that they knew and knowledge that they studied. Then their leader drank wine and became intoxicated and lay with his sister and a group of believers saw that. When he awoke, his sister told him what he had done and said: “A group of people saw what you did who will not keep it quiet for you,” so he summoned people whose loyalty could be bought and excused his actions by telling them: “You know that Adam married his sons to his daughters!”

‘Then the believers who had seen him perform this act came and said: “Woe to you, we must punish you in accordance with God’s law,” so those people who were with him killed them. Then a woman came and said: “I saw it too!” He said: “Woe to you, whore of such-and-such a tribe!” She said: “Yes, I was indeed a whore, but I repented for it.” Then he killed her too. After this he set about destroying the teachings found in their hearts and their books, until nothing remained of it.’

9. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, about the verse, The Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah,’ (), it is narrated from ʿAṭiya al-ʿAwfī, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī that the Messenger of God said: ‘God’s wrath towards the Jews became severe when they said: “Ezra is the son of God,” and God’s wrath towards the Christians became severe when they said: “Christ is the son of God,” and God’s wrath will be severe towards those who shed my blood and hurt me through my family (ʿitra).’
10. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from al-Bukhārī’s Taʾrīkh from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī: ‘During the Battle of Uḥud, the Messenger of God was struck in the face, and his tooth was broken. He got up and said: “Surely God’s wrath towards the Jews became severe when they said that Ezra (ʿUzayr) is the son of God, and His wrath towards the Christians became severe when they said that Christ is the son of God, and surely God’s wrath will be severe towards those who shed my blood and harm me through my family.”’

Author’s comments: In al-Durr al-Manthūr, al-Suyūṭī narrates reports from Ibn ʿAbbās, Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, al-Sudayy and others about the story of Ezra that resemble isrāʾīliyyāt (accretions from the Jewish and Christian traditions), and it appears that all of them actually came from Kaʿb.

11. In al-Iḥtijāj, al-Ṭabrisī narrates that ʿAlī said: ‘May Allah assail them (qātalahum), where do they stray? () means “may God curse them, where do they stray?” because the verb ‘assail’ (qitāl) is used to denote a curse. The same is true in the verse Perish man (qutila al-insān)! How ungrateful is he! ().’

Author’s comments: This has been narrated via Sunnī chains of transmission from Ibn ʿAbbās. In any case, this is an explanation of the meaning of the term as it is used in the verse rather than a linguistic definition of it.

12. In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates via his chain of narrators from Abū Baṣīr that he asked Imām al-Ṣādiq about the verse, they have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah (). He said: ‘By God, they did not call people to worship them, for if they had, people would have refused to do so. Instead, they permitted them what was forbidden and forbade them what was permitted. In this way, they worshipped their scribes and monks without realizing it.’

Author’s comments: al-Barqī narrates a tradition with the same meaning in al-Maḥāsin. Al-ʿAyyāshī also narrates it in his Tafsīr from Abū Baṣīr and from Jābir, who narrates it from Imām al-Ṣādiq and from Ḥudhayfa. Al-Suyūṭī narrates it in al-Durr al-Manthūr from several authorities, all of whom trace it back to Ḥudhayfa.

13. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, we read that Abū Jārūd narrates from Imām al-Bāqir about the verse, they have taken their scribes and their monks as lords besides Allah: ‘As for Christ, some of them exalted him in their own minds until they claimed that he was God and the Son of God. Some of them said: “The third of a trinity!” Another group said: “He is God!” And as for when God says, their scribes and their monks, this is because they obeyed them, listened to them unquestioningly, obeyed their commands, and believed in what they called them to. Therefore, they took them as lords by obeying them while abandoning God’s commands, His scriptures, and His messengers, and tossing these behind their backs. All while following their scribes and monks. They obeyed them while disobeying God.’
14. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is cited from Majmaʿ al-Bayān that al-Thaʿlabī narrated from ʿUdayy b. Ḥātim: ‘I came to the Messenger of God wearing a golden cross around my neck. He told me: “O ʿUdayy, take off this noose!”’
15. In Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated from al-Ṣadūq, who narrates via his own chain of transmission from Abū Baṣīr that Imām al-Ṣādiq said about the verse, it is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth (): ‘By God, the interpretation (taʾwīl) of this verse has not been sent down yet and it will not be sent down until the Qāʾim comes forth. When the Qāʾim comes forth there will not be a single disbeliever in God nor one who associates partners with the Imām save that he detests his coming. And if there was a disbeliever inside a boulder, the boulder would cry out: “O believer! There is a disbeliever in me, so break me open and kill him!”’

Author’s comments: A tradition with a similar meaning has been narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī from Abū al-Miqdām from Imām al-Bāqir, and from Sumāʿa from Imām al-Ṣādiq; and also by al-Ṭabrisī from Imām al-Bāqir; and Tafsīr al-Qummī says that this verse was revealed about the Qāʾim of the Prophet’s Household. And this means that its interpretation concerns him, as indicated by the tradition narrated by al-Ṣadūq.

16. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from Saʿīd b. Manṣūr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Bayhaqī’s Sunan from Jābir, about the verse, that He may make it prevail over all religions: ‘This will not have come to pass until there is not a single Jew, nor Christian, nor follower of any religion other than Islam; and until the sheep and the wolves, the cows and the lions, and the humans and the snakes live side-by-side in safety from one another; and until no mouse burrows into storehouses; and until the tribute is no more, the crosses are broken, and pigs are killed; all of this will happen when Jesus son of Mary descends to earth again.’

Author’s comments: The meaning of the tribute (jizya) being no more is that there is no longer any need for it because there is no longer anyone to take it from, as indicated by the beginning of the tradition. There are numerous traditions which confirm what this one says about there being no disbelief or idolatry when this comes to pass. However, there are other narrations as well that indicate that the Mahdī will impose tribute on the People of the Book after he reappears.

And this is perhaps confirmed by what God says about the People of the Book elsewhere in the Qur’an. For example: We have cast enmity and hatred amongst them until the Day of Resurrection (), So We stirred up enmity and hatred among them until the Day of Resurrection (), and other such verses. These seem to suggest that the People of the Book will continue to exist until the Day of Resurrection, unless of course they merely use this expression to show that this lack of affection between them is permanent. We have discussed this in more detail in our commentary on the verses in question.

17. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, al-Suyūṭī narrates from Ibn al-Ḍurays from ʿIlbāʾ b. Aḥmar that when ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān wished to codify the Qur’an, they wanted to remove the ‘and’ from the beginning of the phrase, and those who treasure up gold and silver () but Ubayy b. Kaʿb said: ‘You will leave the “and” in its place, or I shall surely place my sword upon your neck.’ They left it in place.
18. In his Amālī, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī narrates from a group, from Abū al-Mufaḍḍāl, from his chain of narrators, that when the verse was revealed, And those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give tidings to them of a painful punishment, the Messenger of God said: ‘Anything you have paid zakāt upon is not treasured up, even if it is beneath the seven earths. And anything you have not paid zakāt upon is treasured up, even if it is upon the surface of the earth.’

Author’s comments: A tradition with a similar meaning has been narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr from Ibn ʿUdayy and al-Khaṭīb, who narrate from Jābir, from the Prophet, and it has been narrated by other routes as well, including from Ibn ʿAbbās and other Companions.

19. In the same source, al-Ṭūsī narrates from Imām al-Ṣādiq, from his father Imām al-Bāqir, that he was asked about dinars and dirhams and what people owed of these. Imām al-Bāqir said: ‘These are the seals of God, which He created for the benefit of His creatures, that they might organise their affairs and meet their needs with them. And whoever amasses a significant quantity of them and observes God’s right to them—by paying the zakāt, that is—he has fulfilled God’s command and been dutiful to Him. However, whoever amasses a significant quantity of such coins and is stingy with them, does not deliver God His due from them, and builds treasure houses to store them, this person is one to whom God’s threat of punishment applies. As He says in His Book: on the day when these shall be heated in hellfire and therewith branded on their foreheads, their sides and their backs: ‘This is what you treasured up for yourselves! So taste what you have treasured!’ ().

Author’s comments: This narration supports what we have already said regarding this verse.

20. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, we read that, while he was in Syria, Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī would get up in public and proclaim every day: ‘Give tidings to those who treasure up wealth that they will be branded on their foreheads, branded on their sides, and branded on their backs, until the heat penetrates their insides!’

Author’s comments: In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī uses this narration to explain why God— out of all of the limbs of the human body that He could have chosen to mention—specifically chose the forehead, the side, and the back. He says this is because the purpose of punishing them in this way is for the heat of the fires of hell to penetrate their insides, which means the inside of the head for the brand on their forehead and the inside of the chest and the stomach for the brands on their back and sides.

And it is possible to add to al-Ṭabrisī’s explanation those verses and traditions that say they will be cast face-first and head-first into hell and then have their limbs scorched from above, with the end result that they will be branded on their foreheads, sides, and backs.

21. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated from ʿAbd al-Razzāq’s Muṣannaf from Abū Dharr: ‘Give tidings to those who treasure up wealth that they will be branded on their foreheads, on their sides, and on their backs!’
22. In the same source, al-Suyūṭī narrates from Ibn Saʿd, Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Bukhārī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū Shaykh, and Ibn Mardawayh, who narrate from Zayd b. Wahb, who said: ‘I came upon Abū Dharr in al-Rabadha and asked him: ‘What brought you to this remote place?’ He said: ‘We were in Syria, and I recited the verse, And those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not spend it in the way of Allah, give tidings to them of a painful punishment. Muʿāwiya said: “This is not about us. It is about the People of the Book.” I responded: “It is about us and them both.”’
23. In the same source, it is narrated from Muslim and Ibn Mardawayh from al-Aḥnaf b. Qays: ‘Abū Dharr came and said: “Give tidings to those who treasure up wealth that they will be branded on their backs, and it will burn through to their sides and branded on their foreheads, and it will burn through to the back of their heads!” I said: “What is that?” He said: “I did not tell them anything save what I heard their Prophet say.”’
24. In the same source, it is narrated from Aḥmad’s Kitāb al-Zuhd, from Abū Bakr al-Munkadir, who said: ‘When he was the governor of Syria, Ḥabīb b. Salama sent three hundred dirhams to Abū Dharr with the message: “Use this for your needs.” Abū Dharr told the messenger: “Take them back to him, could he not find someone more favoured by God than us? We need only a shadow to sit beneath, three sheep to give us their milk, and a maid who blesses us with her service. I am afraid of having more than this!”’
25. In the same source, al-Bukhārī and Muslim narrate from al-Aḥnaf b. Qays: ‘I sat with an assembly of the Quraysh and there came a man rough of hair, clothes, and form who stood over us and greeted us. Then, he said: “Give tidings to those who treasure up their wealth of a stone made red-hot by the fires of hell that burns so intensely that when it is placed on their chest, it will burn through to their shoulder, and when it is placed on their shoulder, it burns through to their chest and causes them to shake with pain!”

‘Then he turned away from the group and went and sat down to one side. I followed him and sat next to him without having any idea who he was. I said: “I do not think they appreciated you saying that.” He said: “They don’t understand anything, my friend told me…”—I said: “Who is your friend?” He answered: “The Prophet. Do you see this mountain of Uḥud?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “I would love to have a pile of gold the size of this mountain so that I could give it all away save for three dinars. They do not understand that they are only gathering provisions for this world. By God, I will not ask them for anything of this world nor ask them questions about religion until I meet God Almighty.”’

26. In the Taʾrīkh of al-Ṭabarī, it is related from Shuʿayb, from Sayf, from Muḥammad b. ʿAwf, from ʿIkrama, from Ibn ʿAbbās: Abū Dharr went to ʿUthmān while Kaʿb al-Aḥbār was with him and told ʿUthmān: ‘You should not be content with people not harming one another until they also give charitably to one another, for it might befit the giver of zakāt not to restrict himself to zakāt alone but also to give charitably to his neighbours, his brethren, and include his relatives also.’

Kaʿb replied: ‘Whoever does what is obligatory has discharged his duty and need not do anything more.’

At this, Abū Dharr took his crook and struck him on the head, wounding him and exposing his skull.

ʿUthmān pleaded with him to stop, and Abū Dharr did. He said: ‘O Abū Dharr, fear God and control your hand and your tongue!’ For when Abū Dharr struck him, he had said: ‘O son of a Jewish woman , what are you talking about?’

Author’s comments: The stories of Abū Dharr and his disagreements with ʿUthmān and Muʿāwiya are well known and recorded in the books of Taʾrīkh. Reflecting on the content of the above traditions and, in particular, what Abū Dharr said to Muʿāwiya, this suggests that this verse was not understood as only applying to the People of the Book. Furthermore, his altercation with ʿUthmān and Kaʿb suggests that our reading of the verse is correct, namely that its threat of punishment is directed to those who do not spend in obligatory cases in addition to zakāt.

Our reading is further supported by an analysis of how people lived at that time. Looking at history, we find that people then were divided into two broad groups: a majority who struggled to subsist from day-to-day and barely had enough to clothe themselves and meet their essential needs; and a minority who had become intoxicated with the world and amassing the wealth and property it contained. They amassed millions upon millions of dinars and dirhams in gifts from rulers, the spoils of war, and the taxation of land. It is enough for you to refer to the chronicles that recorded the fabulous wealth of some of the Companions; they owned large sums of money, slaves, estates, and mansions. In Syria, Muʿāwiya and the Umayyad Dynasty managed to create a court that was at least comparable in its luxury to those of the Roman and Persian emperors.

However, Islam does not approve of such extreme differences in wealth unless those with it spend on those without it to narrow the gap between the social classes, for the general situation must be remedied by the wealthy showing compassion to the poor and the strong to the weak.

Now, one might say: Abū Dharr merely expressed his own scholarly understanding (ijtihād) that any wealth in excess of what is needed to feed and clothe oneself is a treasure or hoard (kanz) that must be spent in the way of God. Or, one might say: He was calling people to practice asceticism in regard to worldly things.

However, the reports of what he said flatly contradict this hypothesis. Abū Dharr does not say anything that would indicate this was his personal opinion or individual understanding as a scholar. On the contrary, he says: ‘I did not tell them anything save what I heard their Prophet say,’ or ‘My friend said such-and-such.’ Furthermore, there are narrations with sound (ṣaḥīḥ) chains of transmitters that are found in both Sunnī and Shīʿī collections, in which the Prophet said: ‘There is no one under the heavens or upon the earth more honest in speech than Abū Dharr.’

This refutes the statement of Shaddād b. Aws, which has been narrated from him by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and al-Ṭabarānī: ‘Abū Dharr would hear a ruling from the Messenger of God and go out to his tribe of Bedouins. However, the Messenger of God would later explain the ruling in such a way that showed it to be less stringent than it had first seemed. Everyone else preserved the less-stringent version of the ruling given by the Messenger of God, but Abū Dharr did not hear it, because he was absent, so he acted on the more stringent version he had initially heard.’

However, Abū Dharr’s claim that the verse about treasuring up wealth () is not restricted to the People of the Book but includes both them and the Muslims is not an example of what the above report ascribes to him, namely that he would take the more stringent ruling (ʿazīma) over the less stringent one (rukhṣa). Neither is his statement that merely paying the zakāt is not sufficient to remove the prohibition on hoarding wealth so long as a person is not spending on what is obligatory in the way of God. It is inconceivable that Abū Dharr did not hear the Messenger of God say that there are two kinds of charity, obligatory and recommended, or that he did not know that the evidences for supererogatory charity provide the best clarification for the scope of the verse on hoarding wealth.

Weaker than Shaddād’s narration is what al-Ṭabarī relates in his Taʾrīkh from Shuʿayb, from Sayf, from ʿAṭiyya, from Yazīd al-Faqaʿsī: When Ibn al-Sawdāʾ came to Syria, he met Abū Dharr and said: ‘Are you not amazed by Muʿāwiya saying: “All wealth belongs to God. Lo! Surely everything belongs to God!” It is as though he wants to keep it for himself to the exclusion of the Muslims and erase the name “Muslims” from the fiscal registers altogether!’

So Abū Dharr went to Muʿāwiya and said: ‘How can you call the wealth of the Muslims “the wealth of God”?’

He answered: ‘God have mercy on you, Abū Dharr! Are we not God’s servants? Is not all wealth God’s wealth? Is not all creation His? Is not all command His?’

Abū Dharr said: ‘Do not use this expression!’

Muʿāwiya said: ‘I will not say that it does not belong to God, but henceforth I will call it “the wealth of the Muslims.”’

Then Ibn al-Sawdāʾ went to Abū al-Dardāʾ and said: ‘Who are you? By God, I think you are a Jew!’ Then ʿUbāda b. al-Ṣāmit came and seized him, took him to Muʿāwiya, and said: ‘This is the one who is always provoking Abū Dharr against you!’

Abū Dharr got up in Syria and began to speak: ‘O men of wealth, show kindness to the poor. Give tidings to those who treasure up gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of Allah of branding irons from a fire with which they will be branded on their foreheads, their sides and their backs!’

According to this account, Abū Dharr only took this stance and protested at the urging of Ibn al-Sawdāʾ, and the two sources from whom al-Ṭabarī narrates this report and the bulk of his material about ʿUthmān—Shuʿayb and Sayf—are known liars and fabricators of traditions, as is clearly recorded by scholars of narrators’ biographies (rijāl). They have likewise fabricated traditions from Ibn al-Sawdāʾ, who is also known by the name ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabaʾ, and researchers have established that Ibn Sabaʾ is a purely fictional personality without a historical basis.

27. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated by Ibn Mardawayh from Jābir that the Messenger of God said: ‘There is no hoarder of wealth who does not pay what is due from it save that on the Day of Judgement he will be taken and branded on his forehead and his sides and told: “This is the treasure with which you were stingy!”’
28. In the same source, it is narrated from al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Awsaṭ and Abū Bakr al-Shāfiʿī’s Ghaylāniyyāt from ʿAlī that the Messenger of God said: ‘Surely God has imposed a duty on wealthy Muslims concerning their wealth, as much as suffices the poor, and the poor will never suffer from hunger or poverty except for the fact that the wealthy refrain from giving in charity. Lo! Surely God will hold the wealthy to account most severely or punishment them most painfully because of this!’
29. In the same source, it is narrated by al-Ḥākim, who considers it sound (ṣaḥīḥ, and by al-Dhahabī, who considers it weak (ḍaʿīf), from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, from Bilāl, that the Messenger of God told him: ‘O Bilāl, meet God as a beggar and do not meet him as a wealthy person!’ Bilāl asked: ‘How can I do that?’ He said: ‘If you are given sustenance (rizq), do not conceal it, and if someone asks you for charity, do not refuse them.’ Bilāl asked: ‘How can I do that?’ He said: ‘It is just as I said, or else it is hellfire.’

Discourse

The discussion “A Discussion on the Meaning of ‘Hoard’ or ‘Treasure’ (Kanz)” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

---

1. In other words, heavenly revelations and it should not be misconstrued to mean “different religions”. (Pub.) ↩︎

2. In other words, ‘from among those who were given the Book’ does not mean that there is a group within the People of the Book who ‘do not have faith in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor practise the religion of truth,’ which is what would be implied if ‘from’ was used to signify division. Instead, because it is expository, it means that this description refers to all the People of the Book, as Ṭabāṭabāʾī elaborates below. (Trans.) ↩︎

3. The narrative of revelation and abrogation in this tradition does not match the contents of the first verse (), which reads in full: And when We took a pledge from the Children of Israel: ‘Worship no one but Allah, do good to parents, relatives, orphans, and the needy, and speak kindly to people, and maintain the prayer, and give the zakat,’ you turned away, except a few of you, and you were disregardful. Therefore, the command to speak kindly to people was part of the pledge God took from the Israelites in the past, which God recounts in the Qur’an, rather than something addressed to the Muslims at the time of the Prophet. (Trans.) ↩︎

4. Today known as al-Aḥsāʾ. (Trans.) ↩︎

5. This would mean it referred only to the scribes and monks who treasured up gold and silver. However, the presence of the ‘and’ means that this applies to everyone who hoards their wealth in this fashion. (Trans.) ↩︎