Dajjal (Anti-Christ), the Qur’an and the Beginning of History
Appendix One
Qur’an, Surah al-Maidah: 5:51
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 Allah ʿalayhi as-salām Hakaman 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 the Christians) 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 word Awliya 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 Awliya or 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 Muhammad ʿalayhi 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 in context. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment