Let us now return to
Israel and the Balfour Declaration before we conclude. It would not be
justified to conclude this essay without including Dajjal and his role towards
the end of history. This verse of Surah al-Maidah is certainly linked strongly
to Dajjal’s role in impersonating the Messiah when he comes into our dimension
of existence, primarily because of what we have witnessed of events unfolding
in the last hundred years.
In order for Dajjal to
successfully deceive the world into believing in him as the Messiah who would,
according to scriptural basis, rule the world from the throne of Nabi Daud ʿalayhi
as-salām in Jerusalem, he would have to do a number of things:
1. Liberate the Holy Land from Muslim rule.
2. Establish the state and consequently kingdom of Israel.
3. Raise that power to the ruling state in the world.
4. Then appear and sit on the throne and declare that he is
the prophesied Messiah and that the throne of David has returned.
Now, it is impossible for
anyone to deny that it was precisely this Judeo-Christian alliance that we have
discussed so far, that has successfully fulfilled numbers one and two above. If
Dajjal is to come and declare himself the Messiah, that cannot happen unless
number three too comes to pass. It therefore only remains for us to witness
Israel taking over from the United States of America as the ruling state in the
world. Whether India or China becomes the ruling the state in the world as it
has been of much debate, cannot be the concern of those who study the modern
world using the Qur’an. It is Israel that we would have to pay particular
attention to.
More than two thousand
years after Allah, Most Majestic is He, expelled the Jews from the Holy Land
for the crime they committed against His Messenger, Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi
as-salām, they returned to the Holy Land gradually over a matter of about
three decades to reclaim it as their own. This occurred between the Balfour
Declaration in 1917 and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1947. The
reference to this has been mentioned in the Qur’an in the 91st and 92nd verses
of Surah al-Anbiyah, where Allah laid down clearly that it would be the
function of Gog and Magog to cause the Jews to return to the Holy Land. From
the testimony of history, what we witnessed in the world from 1917–47, it is
clear that those who facilitated the return of the Jews to the Holy Land were
precisely those very same Jews and Christians who allied amongst themselves in
the very beginning effort of the First Crusades. Though they were not
successful then, they eventually became successful in 1947. It should therefore
be established from the clear and distinct link between the two verses (95 and
96) of Surah al-Anbiyah and the 51st verse of Surah al-Maidah that Gog Magog is
located in the very Judeo-Christian alliance thatwould cause the return of the Jews to the
Holy Land and who would, as we witness clearly unfolding now before our very
eyes—for those who have eyes to read the modern world using the Qur’an—raise
that state of Israel to become the ruling state in the world for Dajjal to
finally appear in our dimension of existence and declare himself the King of
the Jews, the Promised Messiah.
If we fail to grasp the
meaning behind the 51st verse of Surah al-Maidah to be the very description of
Gog and Magog, then we will remain blind to Allah’s warning in the Qur’an not
to take them, this particular Judeo-Christian alliance, or in other words Gog
and Magog as our Awliya. We will never understand who Gog and Magog are and we
will never understand that after all that have already unfolded in the
political world today, what remains is only Israel’s rise to become the ruling
state in the world. We will never understand that it is this Judeo-Christian
alliance, in whose ranks will be Dajjal’s foot soldiers.
Conclusion
The problem with modern
Islamic scholarship generally is that anything new that comes out from a
credible scholar is rejected on the grounds that scholars of the past did not
hold such views. This is what may be called religious conservatism. Secondly,
anything new that comes out from a credible scholar is rejected on the grounds
that it contradicts the scholars of the past, while it actually may not. Why
should it not be taken as something that adds on new knowledge to the
scholarship ofthe past?
The essential question
now is: Are we going to understand and attempt to explain the modern world
using the Qur’an or remain in the dark of what has happened in history and what
is to unfold tomorrow because of our holding on obdurately to what the noble
scholars of Islam had written down in the past, without allowing ourselves any
room to think things through? Consequently, we should also ask: Does the Qur’an
prohibit us from doing that?
We cannot afford to reserve
knowledge of Allah’s Book, Most Wise is He, to the noble scholars of the past.
They could not have seen what would unfold in the years 1917–47 for example,
simply because it did not happen in their time. Prof. Hamka saw what happened
in his time and gave new meaning to the verse of Surah al-Maidah according to
what he saw. He did not put a full stop to the meanings of the verse there.
Similarly Maulana Hosein has explained the same verse in a better light now
about four decades after Prof. Hamka, quite simply because he was able to read
all the world events that occurred thereafter using the Qur’an.
Let us now read Maulana
Hosein’s translation of the verse again after having gone through all of the
analysis above that has led us to where we are now:
O you who have faith, do not take (such) Jews and (such) Christians as
your Awliya (friends and allies) who (themselves) are Awliya (friends and
allies) of each other. And whoever amongst you turn to them for friendship and
alliance, would belong to them (and therefore not to us). Surely Allah does not
provide guidance to a people who commit Dhulm.
This therefore is a
modern attempt to translate the verse in as coherent as possible a manner to
all the other verses mentioned above in our analysis that it would otherwise
clearly contradict. This translation explains our times; it explains Akhir
al-Zaman. It is further an attempt to be as coherent as possible to the trails
of history. It is also a credible attempt of a scholar of integrity and age who
found it necessary to add on to the meanings of the verse that the noble
scholars of the past had explained and interpreted. Lastly it must be noted
that the Maulana’s intention, as some would wrongly have it so, is not to
contradict the scholarship of the past. This does not contradict previous
explanations provided by the noble scholars of the past; it does not nullify
all other explanations of the verse that have been given before. It has rather
added on to them.
Maulana Hosein’s
interpretation of the verse broadens what is being misinterpreted as a moral
alliance—in itself ambiguous—to political, economic and military dimensions; it
also explains the times we are living in and clarifies the prohibition in our
times violating which has caused in the Muslim world all the innumerable
consequences of taking part in the Dzulm (wrongdoing, oppression and injustice)
of the oppressor. Saudi Arabia’s, Morocco’s and Turkey’s alliance with NATO are
clear examples of this. This is clearly not a contradiction of the scholarly
work of the past but an expansion of the meanings of the Qur’an, most
importantly from an eschatological perspective.
Lastly, when we bring to
mind the meaning of Barakah in the Qur’an, that the Qur’an explains all times
and that the Qur’an offers new and fresh knowledge in every age, we would not
look at Maulana Hosein’s explanation of the verse as something which
contradicts the previous classical commentaries to the Qur’an. We would only
look at it with gratitude that a Muslim scholar, ripe of age, knowledge and
experience, has added on fresh knowledge to the meanings of Allah’s Kalam.
It now suffices to
conclude that modern global events that occurred in the last hundred years have
demanded this interpretation to come out from the Qur’an and it had to be
Maulana Hosein whom Allah, Most High, had chosen to bring this forward to those
who would now turn to the Qur’an to understand the ominous events unfolding in
our world before our eyes, especially in the Holy Land. This has only given a
new direction and meaning to the application of this verse in these times,
especially now that we are living in an important phase of Akhir al-Zaman.
Being a commentary by
HasbullahShafi’iy to Maulana
Imran N. Hosein’s interpretation of
the verse.
Introduction
(Quran, 6:155, 21:50)
The Qur’an is a book
which contains Barakah
(Quran, 44:3)
The Qur’an was sent
down on a night of Barakah
Sayyiduna ‘Umar in his six-line description of the Qur’an that we are unable
to discuss here except one particular word that is relevant to our subject,
most aptly said that the Qur’an is Barakah. Now, this is not a simple word at
all. This word may be registered amongst the most frequently used vocabulary of
any Muslim from any part of the world, but only that the meaning of this word
is simply untranslatable into any other language, at least not into English.
The meaning of this word can only be understood and explained by an event.
Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah gripped by the pangs of hunger, was waiting in Masjid
an-Nabawi for someone to come who could understand his state and feed him.
Embarrassed to ask directly for food, he had asked both Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and
Sayyiduna ‘Umar, to teach him something from the book of Allah, meaning to take
him home as a guest. Not realizing his state, both of them had passed by him.
The poor companion of the Prophet ʿalayhi as-salām had to continue
hoping for someone else to come and take him home as a guest.
There came the Messenger of Allah ʿalayhi
as-salām the dearest of all to the poor. Abu Hurayrah narrates, “Then
Abul-Qasim passed, and he smiled when he saw me (knowing his state), and said:
‘Abu Hurayrah?’ I said: 'I am here O Messenger of Allah!' He said: ‘Come
along.’ He continued and I followed him, he entered his house, so I sought
permission to enter, and he permitted me. He found a bowl of milk and said:
‘Where did this milk come from?’ It was said: ‘It was a gift to us from so and
so.’
So, the Messenger of Allah said: ‘O Abu Hurayrah’ I said: ‘I am here O
Messenger of Allah!’ He said: ‘Go to the people of as-Suffah and invite them.’
Now, they were the guests of the people of Islam, they had no people or wealth
to rely upon. Whenever some charity was brought to him ʿalayhi as-salām,
he would send it to them without using any of it. And when a gift was given to
him, he would send for them to participate and share with him in it. I became
troubled about that, and I said (to myself): ‘What good will this bowl be among
the people of as-Suffah and I am the one bringing it to them?’
Then he ordered
me to circulate it among them (so I wondered) what of it would reach me from
it, and I hoped that I would get from it what would satisfy me. But I would
certainly not neglect to obey Allah and obey His Messenger, so I went to them
and invited them. When they entered upon him they sat down.
He said: ‘Abu
Hurayrah, take the bowl and give it to them.’ I took the bowl and gave it to
one man who drank his fill and returned it to me, and I gave it to the next and
he did the same. I went on doing this till the bowl reached the Messenger of
Allah ʿalayhi as-salām. By that time all had taken their fill. He took
the bowl, put it on his hand, looked at me, smiled and said, “Aba Hirr.” I
said, “At your service, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Now you and I are
left.” I said, “That is true, O Messenger of Allah.” He said, “Sit down and
drink.” I drank, but he went on saying, “Drink some more.” I said, “By Him Who
has sent you with the Truth, I have no room for it.” He said, “Then give it to
me,” so I gave him the bowl. He praised Allah, uttered the Name of Allah and
drank the remainder.
[Bukhari, Tirmidhi]
It is said that there
were about eighty of them on that day at the blessed home of the Messenger of
Allah.
This is a recorded
miracle of the Prophet witnessed and experienced by all the eighty Companions
of as-Suffah. That blessed container passed around and all of them drank from
it and Abu Hurayrah too drank from it to his fill. Yet there was more milk in
it.
By Allah, if the entire
Madina was there that day at the Prophet’s house, all of them would have drank
from it and milk would still have remained in the bowl. This is Barakah. So is
the Qur’an. The Qur’an remains one Book but does flow infinitely. In fact,
every verse of the Qur’an remains one, but meanings flow infinitely because it
is from Allah Who is the Infinite.
There is not a single exegete
(Mufassir) of the Qur’an who would have dared say that he had already exhausted
the full commentaries, interpretations and meanings of the Qur’an and that
therefore nothing else could be added to them. That would reflect the meanings
of the Qur’an as finite. How in that case could hundreds of thousands of
Tafasir have been published so far on the meanings of the Qur’an? History has
it that the library of Libya alone once had preserved 20,000 commentaries of
the Quran. No one of the 20,000 different authors ever claimed that no one
could add on to the commentary he had himself written and then put a full stop
to the science of Tafsir. New knowledge comes out from the Qur’an and what
meanings flow out from the ‘spring’ of the Qur’an—that is the Spring of Allah’s
Kalam—has no limit. It continues and will continue forever till the Last
Day.
Having established that,
we now turn to Maulana Imran N. Hosein’s commentary to the 51st verse of Surah
al-Maidah. It does not befit Islamic scholarship for someone to say that
Maulana Hosein cannot add on to the existing commentaries on this verse and it
further demands that readers approach his commentary with the meaning of
Barakah in mind when it comes to the interpretation of the Qur’an because the
Qur’an is ever fresh. It must explain every age, and Time is constantly in
change.
The Verse
Before discussing the
problems in the various published translations of the verse Surah al-Maidah: 5:51, it is necessary
first to look into the literal translation of the verse without added parentheses:
O you who have Iman! Do
not take the Yahud and the Nasara as Awliya. They are Awliya of each other (or,
‘Some of them are Awliya of others’). Whosoever turns to them from among you,
would then become part of them. Certainly Allah does not guide the
Dzalimin.
Our attention here is
firstly directed to the word Awliya and the following phrase in the verse,
“they are Awliya of each other,” and then secondly to the overall meaning of
the verse.
Various translators of
the Qur’an have translated this verse with only slight variations in the choice
of words but not in the meaning it has been understood to convey. All of the
translations that I have checked unanimously mention the same meaning of the
verse prohibiting alliance and friendship with the Jews and the Christians
because (by implication, as do most of the classical commentators have pointed
out) they are friends, helpers, guardians, comrades, allies, confidants, and
protectors (different choice of words for translating the word Awliya) of each
other. It is important to note here that in all of the existing English
translations of this verse, there is an implied “because” before the phrase
‘they are Awliya of each other’ for which reason it seems, from these
translations, that Allah has prohibited alliance and friendship with them.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Asad, Maududi, Daryabadi (whose commentary on
the verse will be quoted later), Arberry, Muhsin Khan, Zafrullah Khan, Syed
Abdul Latif, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Shaikh Abdalhaqq and Aisha Bewley, and a
number of others, have all translated the verse in the same manner with only
variations in the choice of words when translating the word ‘Awliya’. There
seems to be no exception to this. The overall meaning of the verse implied in
all of these translations is that the believers should not take the Jews and
the Christians as Awliya because these two parties are Awliya of each
other.
The translation of Amatul
Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar has a slight variation that deserves some attention:
O you who believe! Do not take these Jews and the Christians
for allies. They are allies of one to another (when against you), and whoso
from amongst you takes them for allies, is indeed one of them. Verily Allah
does not guide the unjust people to attain their goal. [Emphasis mine].
Though the addition of
the word ‘these’ may appear to signify that the translator has considered a
definite group amongst the Jews and Christians—therefore not generally all of
them—and though she further puts such a prohibition conditional in parentheses
(“when against you”) it does not still satisfactorily address the problem. Here
the implication of the overall verse is: “Do not take these Jews and the
Christians as your Awliya because when they turn against you they will become
Awliya of each other…”
Some Tamil translations,
including that of Maulana S.S.‘Abdul Qadir Sahib have, “… (Amongst them) some
are Awliya of others (in coming together against you, i.e. Muslims) …” This
therefore should mean some of them, not all, are enemies. But in translating the
first phrase of the verse, there is no such distinction made. Instead, they too
translate (in Tamil) as, “Do not take the Jews and the Christians as Awliya …”
as if implying all Jews and Christians. However, in the next phrase, they
indicate that some of them are Awliya of others, not all, as if implying that
enmity from their quarters will come from one faction of them, those who ally
with each other, not all. This could have been made clearer in the first phrase
itself as it was done in the second. Nevertheless, this Tamil translation is
better than all that we find in English.
If the prohibition is
based on the condition of the Jews and Christians turning against the Muslims,
then the translation should read: “You
who have Iman, do not take (those) Jews and Christians (who turn against you)
as Awliya, (because when they turn against you, they will become) Awliya of
each other …”This however shuts the possibility of alliance with all Jews
and Christians because we may never know who will turn against the believers
and who will not.
Here is Maulana Imran
Hosein’s explanatory translation that is clearer and which differs quite
largely in meaning from the rest:
Oh you who have faith, do not take (such) Jews and (such)
Christians as your Awliya (friends and allies) who (themselves) are Awliya
(friends and allies) of each other. And whoever amongst you turn to them for
friendship and alliance, would belong to them (and therefore not to us). Surely
Allah does not provide guidance to a people who commit Dhulm.
The first point to note
here is that this translation does not nullify all other previous translations
of the verse. Rather, it adds on to the meanings of the verse; it has in fact
opened a new dimension in understanding the verse according to our times; it
sheds new guiding light for a political and communal response to the modern
world situation that Muslim communities around the world find themselves
in.
The differences in
meaning between Maulana Hosein’s translation and others are:
1. Here the prohibition
of taking the Jews and the Christians as Awliya does not apply to all Jews and
Christians, while in all
other translations, the prohibition applies to all Jews and all
Christians.
2. Not all Jews and
Christians are Awliya of each other as history testifies. There has been strong
enmity between these two religious communities in the world. In fact Jews and
Christians have never been Awliya of each other except only until a certain
period in history from which moment onwards this new strange alliance has
persisted till today, and daily grows stronger. In the last 100 years this
alliance/friendship (Wilayah) has intensified with certain clear objectives
within the ranks of this particular alliance. Not only that, even within the
Christian world, there persists till today a violent enmity, particularly
between Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christendom.
This historical evidence is reflected here but not so in all other
translations.
3. The prohibition only
applies to those Jews and Christians who have formed an alliance amongst
themselves. It is this particular community that Allah has prohibited us from
taking as our Awliya. This difference is also comprehensible in Maulana
Hosein’s translation compared to all others.
4. Since this Wilayah
between the Jews and the Christians did not occur in the time of the Prophet ʿalayhi
as-salām and since it did not occur for some centuries after the Prophet,
this verse in fact was a foretelling at the time of revelation that there will
come a time in the future (which we now have the records of history to testify)
when this would happen and at that time when this will be fulfilled, we should
bring this verse of the Qur’an to attention and refrain from taking that
particular group as our Awliya no matter what the circumstances demand. This
translation we present here sheds new light into the meanings of the verse as a
sign of the Hour mentioned in the Qur’an.
None of the above is
reflected in any of the translations that have been published so far. None of
the above have been dealt with in any Tafsir that has been published so far
except a few that have very briefly touched on some of the above points, though
not clearly, but at least in passing.
The clear reasons, for such
a translation that Maulana Hosein has rendered, are the following:
1. Due to the daily
unfolding signs of the Last Day or Islamic Eschatology pertaining to the end of
history, or ‘Ilmu Akhir al-Zaman—knowledge of the end times—and due to what
events have unfolded in the last few centuries that alarmingly indicate the
appearance of Dajjal the false messiah in our spatio-temporal dimension, and the
sequence of events that would lead to the culmination of Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi
as-salām ruling the world from the throne of Nabi Daud ʿalayhi as-salām
as, in the words of the Messenger of Allahʿalayhi as-salāmHakaman
Muqsitan and Imaman ‘Adlan—a Just Arbiter and Leader—this particular verse
shines as a warning for believers to pay particular attention to those amongst
the Jews and Christians who would be Dajjal’s foot soldiers and who would
facilitate Dajjal’s mission on earth. These Jews and Christians, who have
joined hands putting aside their own political, social and theological
differences to prepare the grounds for the world order of Dajjal, have
themselves betrayed their own people and religion. It is this very verse of
Surah al-Maidah that has always indicated the appearance of such a group of
people from among the Jews and Christians who would become allies of each other
in especially assisting Dajjal, who on his part will come to deceive both Jews
and Christians to believe in him as the true messiah they had been all the
while waiting for, in his mission on earth and demonstrate the apparent return
of the golden age of the Prophets Daud and Sulaiman ʿalayhi as-salām. It
is ‘Ilmu Akhir al-Zaman that throws new light on the verse and demands a new
explanation to the verse. To be straightforward, this verse is the only
clearest verse in the Qur’an, which has foretold of the essentially European
and Zionist Judeo-Christian alliance.
2. The Jews and
Christians have never been allies, friends, protectors of each other ever since
the advent of Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi as-salām and the consequent attempt of
the Jews to crucify him. The Christians have never forgiven the Jews for this.
The Jews have never lived under the Christians in peace. This is the testimony
of history. If we translate what Allah has mentioned in this verse as “they are
Awliya of each other” it would be a contradiction to what has occurred in
history for some two thousand years. The truth is, they have never been Awliya
of each other. We cannot afford to allow this contradiction with history due to
our misinterpretation of the Qur’an. Furthermore, even within the ranks of
Christendom, there has been great enmity. We cannot afford to overlook the
impossibility of reconciliation and alliance between Eastern and Western
Christendom at large.
3. The translation would
contradict other verses of the Qur’an. For example, the 113th verse of Surah
al-Baqarah:
The Jews say, “The Christians have nothing (true) to stand
on,” and the Christians say, “The Jews have nothing to stand on,” although they
both recite the Scripture. Thus those who have no knowledge (the Arab
polytheists and others) speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge
between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to
differ.
This verse clearly
establishes the conflict between the Jews and the Christians. How then could
they be Awliya of each other? The only exception to this is that during times
of war against a common enemy, two parties may politically postpone their own
conflicts in order to first defeat a more important enemy common to them. Has
this occurred between the Jews and the Christians against the Muslims? No, not
until a certain time in history and that too, not all of Jewry and Christendom
allied and came together against the Muslims. Only a certain faction did so,
and while they did so, there were other Jews and Christians who opposed the
formation of such an alliance. Eastern Orthodox Christendom is an example of
such opposition within the Christian world against this alliance.
If we do not accept
Maulana Hosein’s translation of the verse and then read further down the same
Surah al-Maidah, we will come across two more contradicting verses:
A.
Verse 57: O you who believe! Choose not for Awliya such of those who received
the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians in particular but may also refer
to others who received revelation too), and of the disbelievers, as make a jest
and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if you are true
believers. (Parentheses mine)
B.
Verse 69: Lo! Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and
Christians—Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right—there
shall no fear come upon them, neither shall they grieve.
How would Allah, Most
High, first prohibit believers to take the Jews and Christians as Awliya and
then immediately thereafter within a matter of twenty verses down the same
Surah go on to prohibit believers from taking as their Awliya only those
amongst the People of the Scripture (which is a term in the Qur’an that jointly
refers to both the Jews and theChristians) and the disbelievers who make a mockery and play of Din
al-Islam? Does this mean that believers are allowed to take as Awliya others
among the Jews and the Christians who do not make of Islam a mockery and play?
How would Allah, Most High, soon thereafter mention with honor that there are
also amongst the Jews, Sabaeans, and Christians believers in Allah and the Last
Day who will have no fear in the Dunyah or grieve on the Day of Judgment? Are
we believers, then allowed to take these believers among their ranks as our
Awliya?
Similarly, Allah, Most
High, declares later on in the 82nd verse of the same Surah
al-Maidah:
You will find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to
those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And you will find the
nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We
are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and
because they are not proud.
If we are prohibited from
taking all Jews and Christians as our Awliya then we have before us yet another
contradiction with the above verse. How could it be that Allah, Most High,
declares those who say, “Lo! We are Christians”, and especially the priests and
monks among them who are not arrogant, to be the closest in affection to the
Muslims? How could it be that while the Qur’an clarifies that those who are
closest in affection to the believers will be the Christians, it also prohibits
alliance and friendship with them, political or otherwise?
Though there are other
examples, the above mentioned are sufficient to clarify that the 51st verse of
Surah al-Maidah under discussion here has been translated in a way that
contradicts with some important verses of the Qur’an, at least three of which
are in the very same Surah.
4. Other verses of the
Qur’an state plainly and clearly that Muslim men are allowed to contract
marriage with Jewish and Christian women; that the food of the Jews and
Christians has been permitted to Muslims. If this verse prohibits Muslims from
friendship and alliance with all Jews and all Christians, then it would be yet
another contradiction with the permission to contract matrimony with their
women and consuming their food. How could Muslims not take them as friends and
allies and yet marry their women and break bread with them? It is not logically
coherent, unless the wordAwliya does
not mean friendship in this context but rather a political alliance and
protectorate as a community of people
beyond social interactions, to support which meaning we would need further
proof from the Qur’an and hadith. The reason for the revelation of this verse
(Sabab al-Nuzul, which we will come to, shortly) does not support this view.
Even so, such an alliance as a community, directly affects social interactions
at the individual level. How could an individual belonging to a community that
prohibits friendship and alliance with another community of people go to the
latter and break bread with them and propose marriage to a woman from amongst
them? How would they look at him? In that case, we may have to answer another
question: Would a Muslim individual who is in a situation of seeking political
protection from the Jews and Christians, but who consequently refrains from
doing so in submission to the command of this verse, still be able to maintain
social friendship with them that would allow him to propose marriage to one of
their women or break bread with them?
5. Translating the verse
as “Do not take the Jews and the Christians as your Awliya” only implies all
Jews and Christians unless indicated otherwise which none of the translations
have done. Why can we not engage in such an alliance? We cannot, because as the
next phrase indicates, they (the Jews and Christians) are Awliya of each other,
and therefore will, by direct implication, turn against us or betray us. If we
take this meaning, which is what all translations offer us, it will similarly
contradict the eighth and ninth verses of Surah al-Mumtahinah, where Allah,
Most High, clarifies:
Allah does not forbid
you from those who do not fight you (which includes the Jews and the
Christians) because of religion and do not expel you from your homes—from being
righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed Allah loves those
who act justly. Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of
religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion—(forbids) that
you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who
are the wrongdoers.[Parentheses mine]
Hence according to this
verse of the Qur’an, it is clear that this Wilayah—alliance, friendship, and
dependence on their protection—is only forbidden with some of them—not all. It
cannot be that this verse is not referring to the Jews and the Christians, because
how is it that Allah, the Most Just, prohibits Wilayah with the Jews and the
Christians, and then when it concerns others who are not Jews and Christians,
He only prohibits Wilayah with those who are hostile and ready to fight while
allowing it with others who are not hostile? It is not befitting Allah’s
Justice; it would be a grave error on our part to say so. If this is not shown
in the translation of the main verse in discussion here, then there would be a
clear contradiction because while one verse prohibits Wilayah generally with
the Jews and the Christians, another verse clearly points out who we can
actually maintain good ties, friendship and alliance with.
Maulana Hosein’s
translation in fact clarifies all the apparent contradictions with other verses
of the Qur’an, which otherwise we will not be able to explain. It also
clarifies the seeming contradictions with history.
Now we turn to the
Tafasir (commentaries) of this verse that both classical as well as modern
scholars have offered us so far. We shall begin with the reasons for the
revelation of this verse, because it is necessary to understand the context of
its revelation, and then move on to the discussion on the meaning of the
verse.
Asbab al-Nuzul
As far as the reasons for
the revelation of this verse are concerned, we find three narrations in the
classical Tafasir. From Tabari and Ibn ‘Atiyya, we summarize the following
three instances to be the reasons for revelation. In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir,
we find a fourth incident, which is very similar to the three in Tabari and Ibn
‘Atiyya and hence may be omitted from our discussion.
It must first be borne in
mind that according to Sayyidah ‘Aisha, Surah al-Maidah was the last Surah to
be revealed and that what is in this Surah holds the last say in terms of the
lawful and the prohibited. Consequently, when we look at all the verses of the
Qur’an, which prohibit Wilayah with those who are outside the fold of Islam—and
these verses are numerous—we would quite easily understand that the verses in
Surah al-Maidah repeating the prohibition should be taken as the final seal on
the matter in case of any doubt in the prohibition, or, as throwing new light
on the prohibition. Let us look at one verse in Surah al-Taubah to elaborate the
matter. Though this Ayah was revealed much later than the 51st verse of Surah
al-Maidah, it is necessary to discuss this here before we look at the Sabab
al-Nuzul:
O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brothers
for Awliya if they take pleasure in disbelief (Kufr) rather than faith (Iman).
Whoever of you takes them for Awliya, such are wrongdoers. [Verse 23]
Now, the essential
question to ask is: While Allah the Al Mighty, had already made it abundantly
clear that a believer is prohibited from taking even his own brothers and
fathers as his Awliya if they were to take pleasure in Kufr rather than Iman,
that is, under a condition of enmity, why is there a need for yet another verse
to repeat the prohibition vis-à-vis Jews and Christians who are anyway more
distant than one’s own brothers and fathers? Is it not understood that if one’s
very own brothers and fathers cannot be taken as Awliya when they prefer Kufr
to Iman, what more the Jews and the Christians? On the other hand, it is also necessary
to ask: If the Jews and Christians are closer in faith to a Muslim than his own
brothers and fathers can these Jews and Christians then be taken as Awliya? The
verse in discussion here, therefore must have been revealed to clarify
something else more profound which is what Maulana Hosein’s explanatory
translation has brought to light.
We may deduce from this
that while Allah, Most High, had already made it abundantly clear who believers
are allowed to take as their Awliya and who not, this verse of Surah al-Maidah
was revealed to indicate of a new Judeo-Christian alliance to come in the
future that would draw clear lines to differentiate who among the Jews and
Christians could be allies, friends and confidants of the believers and who
categorically cannot be. If this verse were not revealed, we would not know of
this unprecedented and strange alliance within the ranks of the People of the
Scripture that believers as a polity would have to be especially wary of not to
engage with in a political and economic relationship towards the end of
history.
Secondly, it must be
taken into serious consideration that Madina had from the People of the Book, a
Jewish community alone. As for the Christian community, though there were
individuals present, they were as a community or polity, all mostly found in
Bilad al-Sham, or Greater Syria.
Now returning to the
reasons for the revelation of the verse, we find the following:
1. It is reported from
al-Zuhri that after the victory of Badr, the Prophet ʿalayhi as-salām
wanted to kill the Jewish captives from Banu Qaynuqa’. ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit
came to the Prophet and said that he has many allies and protectors (Awliya)
from among the Jews. He then carried on to say that he now had turned away from
them towards Allah and His Messenger ʿalayhi as-salām and had made
himself free from depending on them for protection and help (Wilayah). At that
point, Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, the Munafiq (hypocrite), came similarly to
the Messenger of Allah ʿalayhi as-salām and said that as for him, he
feared that a change of fortune would befall him and therefore he could not
afford to give up his Wilayah with the Jews, implying that in case the Jews
gain the upper hand in their battle for power against the Muslims, his retaining
them as his protectors and allies would only continue to benefit him. The
Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and grant him peace, then said: ‘O
Abu’l-Hubab, that which you reserve to yourself of the guardianship of the Jews
apart from ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit is all yours and none of it is his’. In another
narration, it is reported that the Prophet ʿalayhi as-salām said, “I
have given them to you.” Abdullah ibn Ubayy replied: ‘I accept’. It was at this
point that the verse was revealed from “O you who believe!” to “It is the party
of Allah who will be victorious”. Most of the classical Tafasir have recorded
this as the reason for the revelation of the verse.
2. The second instance
was narrated by al-Sadiy to have occurred just after the battle of Uhud. The
situation had become severe for a group of Muslims who had security reasons to
fear that the non-believers who were hostile towards them may overpower them
and put their survival at risk. Therefore two men came out and declared
something similar to what Abdullah ibn Ubayy had done in the above instance.
One of them said that he had chosen to maintain his Wilayah with the Yahud (in Madina)
and another said that he had chosen to maintain his Wilayah with the Christians
in al-Sham. The names of these two men are not mentioned in the narrations. At
this point the verse descended prohibiting both of them from doing so. In this
case the verse would mean that one should not take the Jews (in Madina) as
one’s Awliyaor the Christians (in
al-Sham) as one’s Awliya, because they are Awliya of each other, meaning, the
Jews (in Madina) are Awliya of each other and the Christians (in al-Sham) are
Awliya of each other. This further means that at the event of a Jewish or
Christian conflict with the Muslims, even though those Muslims who were under
the protection of the Jews in Madina or Christians in al-Sham had received a
contractual promise of protection from the respective Jews and Christians, they
would not be spared or reserved, but would suffer the same enmity from their
(Jewish or Christian quarters) as would the rest of the Muslims.
3. The third reason is
reported from ‘Ikrimah to have occurred just after the battle of Khandaq
(trench). The Jews of Banu Qurayzah who had breached their contract with the
Muslims by not only conspiring with the Quraysh against the Muslims but also by
fighting alongside the Quraysh against the Muslims, found themselves under
siege by the Muslims at the end of the battle. The siege lasted for fifteen to
twenty days at the end of which period they surrendered. While the Muslims were
deciding in a Shura (council) how to now deal with them—Banu Qurayzah—Abu
Lubabah was consulted who gave the clear statement that they should be
slaughtered. When Banu Qurayzah attempted to negotiate by requesting Sa’d ibn
Mu’adh, who was their Halif in Madina on the side of the Muslims (a Halif is
someone under the protection of a tribe but not associated with them through
kinship), to give the ruling with the hope that perhaps he would be lenient
with them since they had once promised him protection and security, Sa’d gave
the same ruling as Abu Lubabah that they should be slaughtered. It was at this
moment that the verse descended prohibiting any alliance with them. Rasulullah ʿalayhi
as-salām then passed the verdict and they were killed. In this case as it
was in the first instance, the verse was a command against the Jews in Madina
who had breached their contract with the Muslims. It is noteworthy that neither
in the first instance nor in this third instance were there any Christians
involved in the implication of the verse.
Which was the exact
reason for revelation we do not know and it is not our immediate concern here
to decide on this because on all three cases the Divine injunction was clearly
prohibiting Wilayah with both the Jews and the Christians (either jointly or separately).
However, we may take the first instance to be the most quoted amongst all the
four, and due to which, is the most accepted and confirmed by what we read in
the verse, i.e. verse 52, that follows: “You will see those, in whose hearts is
a disease, race to be with them (the disbelievers, Yahud and Nasara) saying,
‘We fear that a turn in fortune may overtake us…’” This in fact refers to
Abdullah ibn Ubayy who used the same words mentioned in the verse. The two
verses were in fact revealed together.
Now we are able to turn
to the classical commentaries on the verse proper since we have understood the
context of its revelation.
Classical Tafasir on the verse
1. Prohibition is on
taking them as one’s Awliya. Most of the discussion in the commentaries is on
what it means to take them as Awliya, what constitutes this and what is not
included in taking them as Awliya. What is not mentioned in the classical
commentaries is whether are we allowed at all to take any from their ranks as
Awliya if this does not refer to all Jews and Christians, especially in case
they are not hostile or rather friendly and trustable. All implications of most
classical commentaries point to the prohibition of taking all of them,
regardless of whether they are hostile or not, as Awliya. Al-Nasafi, for
example, states that this is due to the reason that Kufr (disbelieve) is one
Millah, pointing to the Hadith that bears these words. Prohibition therefore is
general, referring to all Jews and Christians, for all times and unconditional
because when it suits them they may easily conspire and turn against the
Muslims even though they are against each other with clear hatred within their
own ranks.
2. Verse is generally
referring to the Muslims but beneath the general command it is in reality
addressing the hypocrites (Munafiqun) who are hidden amongst the Muslims. This
can be seen in the context of the verse, which we will come to later. Imam
al-Qurtubi, al-Shawkani, and al-Sawi amongst others have mentioned this.
3. Only English
translations and commentaries show that the prohibition is conditional—most
probably based on some classical Tafasir which I am unable to locate—and
therefore applies only in war or if the Jews and Christians are hostile to the
Muslims. If they are not hostile, neutral or even friendly, no commentary has
pointed out whether there is a possibility of alliance with them.
4. Ibn ‘Atiyyah states
that Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas read the verse in a different Harf
(there were seven Ahruf that the Prophet ʿalayhi as-salām said the
Qur’an was revealed in, all of which were destroyed during Sayyiduna Uthman’s
time except for one which has reached us now). In this reading, the two Sahabah
mentioned above read “Arbaban” instead of “Awliya”. Arbaban means lords and
gods, or even masters to whom a slave submits. We may therefore say that Awliya
in this verse takes on a stronger meaning than protectors and friends. However,
we do not have this reading anymore.
5. Prohibition does not
apply to trade, marriage or such social dealings according to a clear statement
of ‘Abdullah Ibn Abbas, who said: “Eat from what they slaughter and marry from
their women for Allah, Most High, has said in His Book, ‘O you who believe, do
not take the Jews and the Christians as Awliya …’ and one does not become part
of them except through Wilayah, (only) then would one become part of them.”
(Al-Tabari) This is how the companions of the Prophet understood the verse to
mean. Such then would be a clear prohibition of a political Wilayah, and that
does not prohibit one from eating their food and marrying their women.
6. Most of the Tafasir
state that the justification (‘illah) of such a prohibition is the following
phrase “ba’duhum Awliya-u ba’d”—meaning the prohibition is because they are
Awliya of each other. This opens the room for discussion or raises the question
that in case they (those the verse prohibits Muslims from entering into
friendship and alliance) are not Awliya of each other, would the prohibition
then be nullified? This in fact confirms with Maulana Hosein’s interpretation
of the verse. This is because if the ‘illah is that they are Awliya of each
other, then when such an ‘illah is absent, the prohibition should not be
binding anymore. In that case, there is room for alliance with those who are
not hostile to the Muslims and who are not Awliya of each other. However, the
classical commentaries do not mention what is the ruling in case the ‘illah is
absent.
7. The phrase “They are
Awliya of each other” does not mean Jews and Christians are Awliya of each
other because they have never been in such friendship and alliance. It rather
means the Jews are Awliya of each to other Jews and the Christians are Awliya
of each to other Christians. Therefore the verse refers to each of the two
parties separately. Imam al-Sawi said this clearly in his commentary: “(This
is) a new sentence; and the meaning is that some within each party are Awliya
of others in that party, because between the Jews and the Christians is a mighty
enmity.” This too, adds strength to Maulana Hosein’s commentary to the verse
because here the historical enmity between the Jews and the Christians is taken
into account. However, those commentaries that are of this opinion stop there
and continue to say that we are still prohibited from taking all Jews and all
Christians as Awliya.
8. If you do so, you
become one of them, means you have left the fold of Islam—that is, Murtad, or
joined their Din. Ibn Abbas said, “If you join them in their Din, you have
entered their Kufr, if you join them in treaty, you have violated the (Divine)
command.”
9. No classical
commentary, any one amongst all those which I have referred to, has mentioned
in any slight manner if this verse is in any way a foretelling of a future,
mysterious alliance that would unfold between Jews and Christians—who are by
nature of their beliefs, practices and historical relations—two conflicting
polities.
10. Journalist Asad made
an error when he attempted to summarize the classical commentaries to this
verse. He wrote in his commentary to the verse: “As regards the meaning of the
“alliance” referred to here, see 3:28, and more particularly 4:139 and the
corresponding note, which explains the reference to a believer’s loss of his moral
identity if he imitates the way of life, or—in Quranic terminology—“allies
himself” with, non-Muslims.” Despite a brief journalistic adventure with
Mujahid and Shahid Omar Mukhtar, Asad had befriended ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Sa’ud,
the man who betrayed Allah and His Messenger and the Muslim world, and had been
influenced by the dubious Rashid Rida, as is evident in his commentary to the
Qur’an, and finally sat on a ministerial position in the secular nation state
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We should therefore not expect him to have
had the capacity to read the political, economic and military implications of
the verse. He reduced everything to a moral alliance since his friends had
embraced the very Judeo-Christian alliance politically, economically and
militarily. However, what needs to be clarified here is that the classical
commentaries did not register such an interpretation of the verse even though
Asad might have wanted his readers to believe so. It is clearly narrated (as
quoted above) from our Master Abdullah ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him
and his father, that this is beyond a moral alliance since this does not refer
to imitating their way of life which includes eating with them and marrying
their women. Even if this verse were not revealed we would have still
understood from other verses of the Quran not to embrace them in their Din. As
is so wont of modern western secular thought, when everything is reduced to
personal morality and morality blaming, then of course all other important communal
matters could be forced out of the thinking process to finally make everything
circulate around the moral self. In that way of thought, we will never be able
to identify injustice and understand events accurately and consequently not be
able to respond appropriately. When everything becomes a simple moral issue,
then the US will continue to bomb the world and carry on their fasad and get
away with it while we will be forced to continue pointing the finger at
ourselves. This is certainly a modern distortion of classical scholarship.
In order to explain the
modern world using Allah’s Kalam, and not fall into such errors, we must engage
in Fikr. Allah says in the Qur’an that He sent down the Qur’an for a people who
think, who reflect, who ponder. He, Most High, said in Surah an-Nahl, verse 44:
“…We have revealed unto you the Remembrance (Qur’an) that you may explain to
mankind that which has been revealed for them, and that they may engage
themselves in thinking/reflection.” Fikr is not only thinking, but thinking
things through. In this case, we are forced due to our world situation and the
political state of the Muslims vis-à-vis the Jews and the Christians, to think
things through and not entirely rely on the classical Tafasir alone in seeking
an explanation from the Qur’an to understand the modern world. While thinking
things through, we get fresh knowledge and instruction from the Qur’an. Maulana
Hosein has done exactly this. In fact, Maulana Hosein’s interpretation of the
verse in no way contradicts any of the classical Tafasir that conservative
scholars hold on tightly to as if saying that what the scholars of the past
have explained is enough and there is no need to interpret the Qur’an anew.
While doing that, they firstly restrict the knowledge of the Qur’an to the
past, and secondly, fail to explain the modern world according to the Qur’an.
How could they find what was expressed in the past to explain what is happening
today?
Well, what exactly is it
regarding the modern world situation that they fail to explain using the
Qur’an?
Before we answer that
question, let us turn to two important modern commentaries of the
Qur’an—written within the last hundred years—that have thrown new light on the
verse, both of them adding more strength to Maulana Hosein’s
interpretation.
Two Modern Commentaries
—Prof. Hamka and Maulana ‘Abdul Majid Daryabadi.
1. Professor Hamka’s
Tafsir al-Azhar, a commentary to the Qur’an in Malay. (2) Maulana Abdul Majid
Daryabadi’s English
commentary to the Qur’an.Professor
Hamka’s commentary paraphrased in my
own words:
In 1964, Pope Paulus VI,
declared an official Christian (Catholic in particular) forgiveness for the
Jews; that they are free of their sins, one of it being their attempt to
crucify Nabi Isa ʿalayhi as-salām. This is none other than political
forgiveness. It is the strength of the Jews, who have a lot of wealth, to work
together with the Christians in fighting what they consider the threat of
Islam. Immediately after that, in 1967, Arab countries were attacked by the
Jews (Israel) for four days (referring to the Six Day War) and Bait al-Maqdis
was seized from the hands of the Muslims even though they—the Muslims—had
control over Bait al-Maqdis before this for 14 centuries. Perhaps during the
time of Rasulullah ʿalayhi as-salām this was not yet seen because in
Madina a large group of Jews were congregated as a community but the Christians
were in al-Sham. But due to the miracles of the Qur’an, we see today what has
happened in the passage of time and we see with crystal clarity how the
Christians and the Jews collaborate in turning against the Muslims and Islam.
The verse in fact says that the two religious communities that were enemies of
each other will one day come together in facing their enemy—that is Islam,
until the state of Israel will dominate the lands of Islam with the help of the
Christian communities who are actually supposed to be more inclined to help the
Muslims. This is because the Jews oppose the Christians not only by rejecting
Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi as-salām as a Prophet and Messiah, but also that he
was an illegitimate child while Muslims affirm Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi as-salām.
This makes Muslims closer to Christians and therefore make Christians more
inclined to help Muslims. However, what has occurred is the opposite.
2. Maulana Abdul Majid
Daryabadi:
“The Jews and Christians
have much in common, and can, and do, readily form a combination against Islam.
As the most recent instance of their animosity against Islam, witness the
Christian Britain’s zealous sponsoring of ‘Zionism’ and ‘Jewish home in
Palestine.’”
Maulana Daryabadi’s
commentary sharply points out that this verse refers to the Zionist efforts in
establishing the State of Israel. Though written in the context of his time it
is certainly more relevant to our time too.
Comparing both, it is
Prof. Hamka’s commentary that more strongly supports Maulana Hosein’s
interpretation of the verse.
Now, in thinking things
through, let us look at the context of the verse in Surah al-Maidah. It is
important to read the verse together with what precedes it and what follows
it.
Context
The passages throughout
the Surah linked to our study here are verses 5–19, 32, 41–88, 110–120. In
these passages, Allah, Most High, addresses the Jews, the Christians, the
Muslims and the hypocrites. It is clear that while attempting to understand
Maulana Hosein’s commentary on the verse, the whole Surah should be read. It
should also be clear in one reading that:
1. Not all Jews and
Christians are enemies of the Muslims.
2. The Qur’an came to
affirm the Torah and the Gospel and to complete Divine revelation for mankind
through Prophet Muhammadʿalayhi
as-salām.
3. There are amongst the
Jews and the Christians those who are believers and therefore could be taken as
Awliya.
4. There is a door of
alliance and integrated living with the Jews and Christians always open for the
individual Muslim as well as the Muslim polity.
5. There are intermittent
warnings issued to the hypocrites who are outwardly Muslim but who hide their
denial of truth, and thereby always incline to the disbelievers in Nabi
Muhammad ʿalayhi as-salām and the Qur’an which includes Jews and Christians.
6. Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi
as-salām forms an important part of the subject since the Surah not only
speaks of him in the middle but returns to his subject at the end. There are
warnings to the Christians as much as there are praises of the Christians to
the extent that Allah, Most High, in His divine wisdom, confirms that there are
some amongst them whom believers will find to be closest in faith, which
Christians, Muslims can therefore take as their Awliya. The Surah is named
after an event in the life of Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi as-salām. This is also
important to consider because Dajjal whose role is to impersonate the Messiah
will rule the world from Jerusalem declaring himself to be the Messiah while a
Judeo-Christian alliance is what will unite under him believing in him as the
true Messiah and facilitating his coming to and establishment of power.
7. As much as Allah, Most
High, has spoken of Nabi ‘Isa ʿalayhi as-salām in this Surah, so much
has He also spoken of Nabi Musa ʿalayhi as-salām. As Nabi ‘Isa is for
the Christians, so is Nabi Musa for the Jews. They did not fight with Nabi Musa
ʿalayhi as-salām to conquer the Holy Land by which they openly rebelled
against Allah and His Messenger, but there would come a time when they would go
and fight under the sway of the false Messiah (Dajjal) with a Christian backing
and the Christians too would go and fight under Dajjal’s sway with a Jewish
backing (as it was the case during the Crusades) to take control of the Holy
Land. This alliance revolving around controlling the Holy Land and the Levant
is directly founded on this 51st verse of the Surah.
From the context of the
verse therefore, we should be able to understand that the Euro-Zionist,
Judeo-Christian alliance, in their attempt to rule the Holy Land and dominate
the Levant, cannot include all Christians and all Jews. Those who initially
constituted its ranks were small in number in comparison to the whole of the
Judeo-Christian world and did not appear in history except about 500 years
after the Qur’an was revealed. That community of people gradually grew stronger
and became superpowers of the world in the last hundred years. More
importantly, the people of this alliance took control of the Holy Land,
established the State of Israel and have now successfully raised it to the
level of a nuclear superpower capable of defying any other power in the world. They
have done all of this while a large number of Christians and a significant
number of Jews not only loathed at them and refused to join them, but were even
so much as victimized by them. The verses of Surah al-Maidah read in context
will prove beyond doubt that Muslims are not prohibited from allying with such
victimized Jews and Christians who recognize injustice and who are courageously
willing to defy the Judeo-Christian Zionist alliance. All of this becomes clear
only incontext. For that the whole
Surah must be read.
The verses of the Qur’an
are interconnected. In Surah al-An’am, verse 114, Allah, Most Wise, describes
the Qur’an Mufassalan—joint together and fully explained, meaning all the
verses are well connected and explain each other. They are neither isolated nor
does each stand alone. In order to think things through it is not correct to
look at this verse alone. It is a requisite to connect it with other verses of
the Qur’an.
It would be more
enlightening, as is always the case with the verses of the Qur’an, if this
verse is read as a finely arranged part of the entire Surah of al-Maidah.
