Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:217

{They ask you about the Sacred Month} Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi narrated via Zayd ibn Ruman from Urwah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent Abdullah ibn Jahsh—who was the son of the Prophet’s paternal aunt—to Nakhlah. He said: "Stay there until you bring us news of the Quraysh." He did not command him to fight, and this was during the Sacred Month. He wrote a letter for him before informing him where to go, saying: "Go forth with your companions, and when you have traveled for two days, open your letter and look into it. Then, follow what I have commanded you therein, and do not compel any of your companions to accompany you." When he had traveled for two days, he opened the letter, and it read: "Proceed until you reach Nakhlah, and bring us news of the Quraysh that reaches you from them." He said to his companions—who were eight in number—when he read the letter: "Hearing and obedience. Whoever among you desires martyrdom, let him go with me, for I am proceeding according to the command of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Whoever among you dislikes this, let him return, for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) has forbidden me from compelling any of you." The group proceeded with him until they were at Bakhran. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas and Utbah ibn Ghazwan lost a camel they were taking turns riding, so they stayed behind to search for it, while the group continued until they arrived at Nakhlah. Amr ibn al-Hadrami, al-Hakam ibn Kaysan, Uthman ibn Abdullah ibn al-Mughirah, and Nawfal ibn Abdullah passed by them, carrying trade goods from Ta'if consisting of tanned hides and raisins. When the group saw them, Waqid ibn Abdullah, who had shaved his head, came out to them. When they saw him shaved, they said: "They are Umrah performers; there is no harm to you from them." The companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) consulted among themselves, and it was the last day of Jumada. They said: "If you kill them, you are killing them in the Sacred Month, and if you leave them, they will enter the Sacred Mosque tonight and shield themselves from you." The group resolved to kill them; Waqid ibn Abdullah al-Sahmi shot Amr ibn al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him. Uthman ibn Abdullah and al-Hakam ibn Kaysan were taken captive, while Nawfal escaped and eluded them. They drove the caravan and came with it to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), who said to them: "By Allah, I did not command you to fight in the Sacred Month." The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) withheld the two captives and the caravan, taking nothing from it. When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said what he said to them, they were disheartened and thought they were ruined, and their fellow Muslims rebuked them. When the news reached the Quraysh, they said: "Muhammad has shed sacred blood, seized property, taken men captive, and declared the Sacred Month lawful." Then this verse was revealed, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) took the caravan and ransomed the two captives. In the Sirah of Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, it is stated that this occurred in Rajab and that they encountered them on the last day of it. In a narration by al-Zuhri from Urwah, when the news of that deed reached the disbelievers of Quraysh, a delegation of them rode until they came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and asked: "Is fighting lawful in the Sacred Month?" Then Allah the Almighty revealed the verse. Hence it is said: The questioners were the polytheists. This is supported by the fact that the subsequent mention of obstruction, disbelief, and expulsion is the greatest proof thereof, so that it might be a subtle criticism of them, consistent with their criticism of the believers. Most commentators chose that the questioners were the Muslims, saying: Most narrations imply this, and the evidence does not explicitly state the intended meaning.

The intent of {the Sacred Month} is Rajab or Jumada. The alif-lam (the definite article) is for reference or general class. It is more likely that it is for the genus, meaning the Sacred Months: Dhu al-Qa‘dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, al-Muharram, and Rajab. They were called "sacred" because fighting is forbidden in them. The meaning of {They ask you}—meaning the Muslims or the disbelievers—is about fighting in the Sacred Month, with {fighting in it} being a substitute (badal ishtimal) for "the month," because the first is not sufficient to convey the intended meaning, while evoking the second and being associated with it, though not by way of a part-to-whole relationship. Since an indefinite noun can be a substitute for a definite one if it is described or operative, the condition of being described applies to the badal kull min kull (total substitution) as affirmed by al-Radi. Abdullah read it as "about fighting" (‘an qital), which is also an ishtimal substitute, but with the preposition repeated. Ikrimah read it as "killing in it" (qatl fihi). Similarly, in {say: fighting in it is great}—meaning grave and sinful. This confirms the sanctity of fighting in the Sacred Month and that the belief that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) considered fighting in it lawful is false, and what occurred from his companions (peace and blessings be upon him) was a matter of error in ijtihad (legal reasoning), which is pardoned; rather, he who performs ijtihad and errs receives one reward, as stated in the Hadith.

Most hold that this ruling is abrogated by His saying, the Almighty: {So when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them}. For the intent of "the Sacred Months" here is specific months during which the polytheists were permitted to roam, as per His saying: {So roam the earth for four months}. It is not intended to mean the Sacred Months of every year. Restricting it to those indicates that killing them after they have passed is commanded in all places and times; this is the abrogation of the specific by the general. Our masters, the Hanafis, accept this. As for the Shafi‘is, they say: A specific text—whether it precedes the general or follows it—serves to qualify it, because the general is, in their view, speculative (zanni), and the speculative cannot oppose the definitive (qat‘i). The Imam said: My view is that the verse does not indicate an absolute prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month, because "fighting" here is an indefinite noun in a positive statement, so it does not imply generality. Thus, there is no need to posit abrogation. It was countered that it is general because it is described with a general description, or by the context of the situation. Even if admitted, it refers definitely to fighting the polytheists, because fighting Muslims is absolutely forbidden without restriction to the Sacred Months. The response is: We do not concede that it is described, for the prepositional phrase could be a loose adverbial. Even if the generality of the description is conceded—or rather, it is specified by the fighting that actually occurred in the specific Sacred Month—the description that yields generality is a description whose generality equals the generality of the class, as in His saying: {And there is no creature on earth nor bird that flies with its wings}. The fact that the answer should match the question is evidence for the specific, and that the meaning is fighting the polytheists in its general sense is not conceded, because the discourse concerns the specific fighting. Even if we concede its generality in the question, we do not concede its generality in the answer, based on what al-Raghib mentioned: that when an indefinite noun is mentioned and then repeated, it is repeated as a definite noun, such as "You asked me about a man, and the man is so-and-so." Its being indefinite here is a notification that not every type of fighting has this ruling; for the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) fighting against the people of Mecca did not have this ruling. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "It was made lawful for me for an hour of the day." The prohibition of fighting Muslims absolutely is not hidden, for fighting the rebellious (bughat) is lawful, and they are Muslims. The fair view is that the claim of abrogation is not necessary. Yes, it is possible, and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) held this, as narrated from him by al-Dahhak. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Sufyan al-Thawri that when he was asked about this verse, he said: "This is something abrogated, and there is no harm in fighting in the Sacred Month." ‘Ata disagreed, for it is reported that when he was asked about fighting in the Sacred Month, he swore by Allah that it is not lawful for people to invade in the Sacred territory, nor in the Sacred Month, except if they are fought in it, and he made this a binding ruling until the Day of Resurrection, and the nation today is in disagreement regarding this in all lands.

{And obstruction}—meaning prevention and turning away—{from the path of Allah}—which is Islam (said Muqatil), or the Hajj (said Ibn Abbas and al-Suddi), or the migration, as has been said, or all acts of obedience that lead the servant to Allah. The genitive addition is either for reference or for the genus. {And disbelief in Him}—meaning in Allah or in His path—{and the Sacred Mosque}. Abu Hayyan chose to treat this as conjoined to the genitive pronoun even if the preposition is not repeated; the Kufans, Yunus, al-Akhfash, and Abu Ali allowed this, and it is common in the language of the Arabs, both in poetry and prose. It was countered that there is no meaning to "disbelief in the Sacred Mosque," which is a necessity of this conjunction. This is debatable, as disbelief can be attributed to objects based on the ruling associated with them, like His saying: {Whoever disbelieves in the Taghut (idols/false deities)}. The Judge chose to estimate a muḍāf (possessed noun) conjoined to {obstruction}, meaning: and obstruction of the Sacred Mosque from those circumambulating, those staying for devotion, and those bowing and prostrating. It was countered that deleting the muḍāf while keeping the muḍāf ilayh in its state is restricted to what has been heard (in usage). This was rejected by denying the absolute nature of that; in al-Tashil, if the muḍāf ilayh follows a conjunction connected to it or separated without being preceded by a muḍāf like the deleted one, both in wording and meaning, it is permissible to delete the muḍāf and keep the muḍāf ilayh in its genitive state by analogy, like "Like Zayd and his father say that," meaning "like his father," and "Not every black thing is a date, nor white is fat." If one of the conditions is missing, it is restricted to what has been heard. In our case, the addition of the "like" precedes what was deleted from it. Al-Zamakhshari chose to conjoin it to {path of Allah}. It was countered that conjoining {and disbelief in Him} to {and obstruction} prevents this, as the conjunction to the relative pronoun cannot precede the conjunction to the relative clause. Two ways were mentioned for the validity of this: First, that {and disbelief in Him} is in the meaning of obstruction from the path of Allah, so the conjunction is by way of explanation, as if it were said: "And obstruction from the path of Allah—I mean disbelief in Him and the Sacred Mosque," and the separator is not foreign. Second, that the position of {and disbelief in Him} is after {and the Sacred Mosque}, but it was brought forward out of extreme concern, as in His saying: {Nor is there to Him any equivalent}, where the rightful order of the speech was "Nor is there anyone equivalent to Him." It is not hidden that the first way is better because bringing it forward does not remove the defect of separation and adds another defect. Al-Sajawandi chose to conjoin it to "the Sacred Month," but this was weakened because the group did not ask about the Sacred Mosque. Abu al-Baqa chose that it is attached to a deleted verb indicated by "obstruction," meaning: "and they obstruct from the Sacred Mosque," as He, the Almighty, said: {They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from the Sacred Mosque}. This was weakened because the deletion of the preposition while it remains operative is something that is almost never found except in poetry. It was also said that the waw (and) is for an oath that occurred in the middle of the speech, which is as you can see.

{And the expulsion of its people from it}—namely, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the believers. They were its people because they were the ones upholding its rights. It is also said that this is because they would become its people in the future after the conquest of Mecca. {...is greater in the sight of Allah}—a predicate for the items counted among the grave sins of the Quraysh. The comparative form is used for both singular and plural, masculine and feminine, and the object of comparison is deleted, meaning: than what the raiding party did by error in ijtihad. The existence of the origin of the act in that deed is based on their claim.

{And fitnah (trial/persecution) is greater than killing} is a concluding remark for what preceded, for emphasis; it is conjoined as a general ruling is conjoined to a specific one. Meaning: the fitnah by which the Muslims are tried and tortured so that they might disbelieve {is greater in the sight of Allah} than the killing; and what was mentioned previously is included in it fundamentally. It is also said that "fitnah" means disbelief, and the discourse is a major premise for a minor one that was deleted, which had already preceded as the reasoning for the previous ruling.

{And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion} is conjoined to {They ask you}, united by the identity of the subject if the questioners were the polytheists, or it is parenthetical if the questioners were others. The intent is to inform of the permanent enmity of the disbelievers as a form of warning to the believers against them, and to alert them not to be concerned with conforming to them in some matters. The {until} (hatta) is for causality; the meaning is: they will continue to be your enemies in order to turn you back from your religion. His saying, the Almighty, {if they are able} is attached to "what is with Him." The expression "if they are able" serves to imply the remoteness of their ability and that it is not permissible except by way of supposition, just as the impossible is supposed. The benefit of the restriction with the condition is to alert to the absurdity of their minds and that their continued enmity is an act of futility from which the supposed goal does not result. It is not attached to "they will continue to fight you," because there is no meaning to their continuity in enmity "if they were able," as that is remote. Ibn Atiyyah held that {until} is for the limit, and the restriction with the condition is then to indicate that the limit is unlikely to occur; restriction by an impossible limit is common, as in His saying: {until the camel passes through the eye of a needle}. The answer to this is that the unlikelihood of the goal occurring results in the non-interruption of enmity, which was indicated at the beginning of the speech, and the claim of emphasis is not certain. Yes, it is possible to take it as a limit if "fighting" is taken to mean its true meaning, and the condition is attached to "they will continue," so the restriction implies that their ceasing to fight at some times is because they are unable, but the meaning then becomes banal, as is not hidden.

{And whoever among you turns back from his religion}—the true religion, by their leading him astray and tempting him, or fear of their enmity—{and dies while he is a disbeliever}—by not returning to Islam—{then those}—an allusion to the relative pronoun with consideration to its being described by the content of the clause regarding apostasy and death in disbelief, and the distance in the pronoun [those] is to signify the distance in status of he who does such a thing in evil and corruption, with the plural and singular used by looking at the wording and meaning—{have wasted their deeds}—meaning their good deeds which they did in the state of Islam become corrupt, as if they never were. It is said: The origin of habat (wasting/nullification) is a corruption that affects livestock from eating hubat, which is a type of harmful fodder. In al-Nihayah: "Allah the Almighty nullified his deed," meaning He invalidated it. It is said: His deed nullified (habit) and was nullified (uhbita), and another nullified it. This is from their saying: The animal nullified (habatat)—with a fatha on the ba—if it strikes good pasture and overeats until it swells and dies. It was also read as habatat with a fatha [on the ha], which is a dialect for it. {In the world and the Hereafter}—due to the invalidation of what they imagined and the loss of the benefits of Islam in the former, and the loss of reward in the latter. {And those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally} like all other disbelievers, and their previous faith before the apostasy will avail them nothing.

Al-Shafi‘i used this verse as evidence that apostasy does not nullify deeds until one dies upon it, based on the fact that if it nullified them absolutely, the restriction in His saying: {and dies while he is a disbeliever} would have no benefit. The claim that its benefit is that "nullification" of all deeds, such that he has no deed at all, is contingent upon dying in disbelief—so that if he dies a believer, his faith and the deeds accompanying it are not nullified—does not negate the nullification of deeds prior to apostasy simply by apostasy. This is meaningless, because the intent of "deeds" in the verse is the deeds prior to apostasy, as there is no meaning to the nullification of what has not been done. Thus, this claim does not hold, as is not hidden. It is also said: This is based on his making death in it a condition for nullification, and when the condition is absent, the conditioned is absent. It was countered that the grammatical and conditional "condition" is not in this sense; rather, at most, it is causality and necessity, and the absence of the cause or the necessary factor does not necessitate the absence of the effect or the necessitated, because causes may be multiple. If it were a condition in this sense, the difference of opinion regarding the concept of the condition would not be conceivable.

Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) went to the view that mere apostasy necessitates nullification, due to His saying, the Almighty: {And whoever disbelieves in faith, his work has become worthless}. What al-Shafi‘i used as evidence is not explicit in the intended meaning, because it is only complete if the sentence {And those are...} etc., is a concluding remark conjoined to the conditional sentence. As for if it were conjoined to the result (jaza'), and the total of nullification and eternal stay in the Fire were arranged upon death in apostasy, we do not concede its completeness. Whoever claims this countered Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) by saying that he is required to carry the absolute on the restricted, acting in accordance with both proofs. It was answered that carrying the absolute on the restricted is conditional, in his view, upon the absolute and the restricted being in the same ruling and the same incident, and here they are in the cause, so carrying it is not permissible because it is possible that the absolute is a cause just like the restricted. The fruit of the disagreement, as it is said, appears in one who prayed, then apostatized, then became Muslim, while the time [for prayer] remains; he is required, according to the Imam, to repeat the prayer, contrary to the Shafi‘i view, and likewise the Hajj. The Shafi‘is disagreed regarding one who returned to Islam after apostasy: does his deed return to him with its reward or not? Some went to the first, except for [the merit of] Companionship, for it returns stripped of its reward. The majority went to the second, that his deeds return without reward, and there is no difference between Companionship and others. Perhaps this is what is relied upon in the school. So understand.