Tafsir of Ar-Rum 30:4

(In a few years): This is also connected to [the verb] "they will overcome." Al-bid' (the few) is, according to al-Asma’i, any number between three and ten. In the Mujmal, it is defined as between one and nine. It is also said that it is anything above five and less than ten. Al-Mubarrad said: it is between the two decades in all numbers.

It is narrated that the Persians attacked the Romans and encountered them at Adhru'at and Busra, where they defeated them. This reached the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions while they were in Mecca, and it burdened them. The Prophet (peace be upon him) disliked that the unlettered polytheists of the Persians would triumph over the People of the Scripture among the Romans. The disbelievers in Mecca rejoiced and gloated. They met the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: "You are a people of the Scripture, and the Christians are a people of the Scripture, and our brothers [the Persians] have overcome your brothers [the Romans]. If you were to fight us, we would surely overcome you." Then Allah the Exalted revealed: "Alif-Lam-Mim. The Romans have been defeated" (up to the end of the verses).

Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) went out to the disbelievers and said: "Have you rejoiced at the victory of your brothers over our brothers? Do not rejoice, for Allah shall not gladden your eyes. By Allah, the Romans will surely overcome the Persians; our Prophet (peace be upon him) has informed us of that." Ubayy ibn Khalaf stood up to him and said: "You lie." Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) replied: "You are the liar, enemy of Allah. Come, let us make a wager of ten qala'is (she-camels) from me and ten from you. If the Romans overcome the Persians, I win, and if the Persians overcome the Romans, you win, within three years." He wagered with him, then Abu Bakr went to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and told him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "It is not as you said; al-bid' is between three and nine." So he increased the wager and extended the duration.

Abu Bakr went out and met Ubayy and said: "Perhaps you regret it?" He replied: "No, come, let us increase the wager and extend the term, and make it one hundred qala'is within nine years." He said: "I have done so." When Abu Bakr intended to migrate, Ubayy demanded a guarantor for the wager if he lost, so his son, Abd al-Rahman, stood as guarantor. When Ubayy intended to go to Uhud, Abd al-Rahman demanded the guarantor from him, and he gave him one. Ubayy died from the wound inflicted upon him by the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Romans overcame the Persians when the seventh year began.

In some narrations, it is said that they triumphed over them on the day of al-Hudaybiyyah. Al-Tirmidhi reported—and classified it as hasan—that when the day of Badr arrived, the Romans overcame the Persians. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) took the wager from Ubayy’s heirs and brought it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Give it as charity." In a narration by Abu Ya'la, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduyah, and Ibn 'Asakir from al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "This is al-suht (ill-gotten wealth); give it as charity."

A problem is raised: if this was before the prohibition of gambling—as narrated by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi from Qatadah, and al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as sahih from Niyar ibn Mukram al-Sulami, which is the apparent case, as the Surah is Meccan and the prohibition of wine and gambling was among the last of the Quran to be revealed—then what is the reason for it being called suht? And if it was after the prohibition, how could he be ordered to give forbidden wealth as charity when it is not mixed with anything else and its owner is known? In such a case, the wealth must be returned to its owner. If it is said that it is wealth from a warring party (harbi), and the incident occurred in Mecca—which was then a land of war (dar harb)—and invalid contracts are permissible therein according to Abu Hanifah and Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on them), then it does not appear to be suht.

It is as if you would reject the authenticity of this report. If its authenticity is not established, the command to give it as charity remains, and it is possible that it was for a benefit the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw, which is donating wealth that is permissible. As for it being before the prohibition of gambling, as is relied upon, it is evident. As for it being after, it is because Abu Hanifah and Muhammad said that invalid contracts are permissible in the land of war between Muslims and disbelievers, and they used the incident involving Abu Bakr in this story as proof. The narrations have confirmed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not disapprove of the wagering itself, but only disapproved of the three-year term and guided him to increase the stakes.

Perhaps it may be said, assuming its authenticity: al-suht does not mean "forbidden," but rather "that which causes shame and deficiency in honor," such that it seems to "uproot" it, as in the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The earnings of a cupper are suht." Al-Raghib said: "This is because it diminishes honor, not religion." It is as if the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw that amassing such wealth, even if technically permissible, would undermine the honor of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), so he applied the term suht to it. This does not contradict his permission for the wagering, as wagering does not harm honor at all, and it contains within it the manifestation of certainty in the truth of what the Prophet (peace be upon him) brought. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was confident in the righteousness of al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), and that if he ordered him to give as charity what he took and forbade him from keeping it, he would not disobey him.

It is also said: al-suht here means "that which there is no liability upon the one who consumes it," which is one of its meanings, as in al-Nihayah. The meaning is: "This is that upon which there is no liability for you if you consume it and dispose of it however you wish; give it as charity." It is as if the Prophet (peace be upon him), after informing al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that there was no impediment to his disposing of it as he wished, guided him to what is better and more appropriate, saying: "Give it as charity." And this is as you see.

It is also said that al-suht, as in al-Nihayah, appears in speech meaning "forbidden" at times and "disliked" at others, and this is determined by context. Thus, it is possible in the report, if it is authentic, that it means "disliked," since the command to give it as charity precludes it from meaning "forbidden." Therefore, it must mean "disliked." In this there is scrutiny. As for interpreting al-suht as "forbidden" and being forced to accept the permissibility of giving forbidden wealth as charity due to this report, it is something that is not to be paid attention to at all. So contemplate.

Both victories occurred during the reign of Khosrow Parviz. It is stated in Rawdat al-Safa, translated: "When fourteen years of the reign of Khosrow had passed, the Romans betrayed their king and killed him along with his son, Banatus. His other son fled to Khosrow, who equipped him with three high-ranking commanders and a great army. They entered the lands of Syria, Palestine, and Jerusalem, taking captive the bishops and others therein. They sent to Khosrow the Cross that had been buried by them in a golden coffin. They also seized Alexandria and the lands of Nubia until they reached the outskirts of Constantinople, causing much ruin. They pressured the Romans to obey the son of Caesar, but it was not achieved. It is said that the Romans appointed over them a person named Heraclius, who was a just king who feared Allah the Exalted. When he saw that the ruin of the Persians had spread in the lands of the Romans, through looting and killing, he beseeched and wept and asked Allah to save the Romans. His prayer met the target of acceptance, and he saw on multiple nights in his dream that Khosrow had been brought to him with a chain around his neck, and it was said to him: 'Hasten to fight Parviz, for you shall have victory and triumph.' Heraclius gathered his army because of that vision and headed from Constantinople to Nisibis. Khosrow heard of this and equipped twelve thousand [soldiers] with one of his commanders. Heraclius faced them and crushed them, killing nine thousand of them along with their commanders."

In some narrations, it is said that they tied their horses in al-Mada’in. I have seen in some books that the reason for the Roman victory over the Persians was that Khosrow sent to his commander, Shahriyar—who was appointed to fight the Romans—to kill his brother, Farkhan, because of a statement he had made: "I saw myself sitting on the throne of Khosrow." He did not kill him. Then he sent to the Persians: "I have dismissed Shahriyar and appointed his brother, Farkhan." Farkhan learned the truth of the situation and returned the kingdom to his brother. Shahriyar wrote to Caesar, King of the Romans, and they cooperated against Khosrow. The Romans defeated the Persians, and the news came [to the Muslims], and they rejoiced. This was among the clear, dazzling signs testifying to the validity of prophethood and that the Quran is from Allah the Almighty, the All-Knowing, the All-Aware, due to it being news of the unseen which no one knows except Allah.

It is authentic that many people embraced Islam at that time. Ali (may Allah honor his face), Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, al-Hasan, and Mu’awiyah ibn Qurrah read: "Ghulibat al-Rum" (The Romans have been defeated) in the active voice, and "sayaghlibun" (they shall overcome) in the passive voice. The meaning, according to what has been said, is that the Romans were defeated in the rural areas of Syria, and the Muslims would overcome them. The Muslims indeed attacked them in the ninth year after the revelation of the verse and conquered some of their lands. The attribution of "defeat" to them is an attribution of a verbal noun to its subject. The two recitations are reconciled by stating that the verse was revealed twice: once in Mecca according to the majority recitation, and once on the day of Badr as narrated by al-Tirmidhi—who classified it as hasan—from Abu Sa’id, according to this [active/passive] reading.

Some scholars said: The correct view is to let the revelation remain on its apparent meaning, and by the Muslims overcoming them, it means what happened at the Battle of Mu’tah. It was in Jumada al-Ula in the year eight, which is close to the date mentioned for the first revelation of the verse. There is no need for multiple revelations, as it is permissible for the meanings of two recitations to differ without contradicting each other. That a group is a victor and a vanquished in two different times is not conflicting. So contemplate. End quote.

It is not hidden from one who examines history that this is something that hardly holds up, because the Romans were not defeated by the Muslims in that battle; rather, they withdrew from them after Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, Zayd ibn Harithah, Abdullah ibn Rawahah, and 'Abbad ibn Qays—among others of the noble companions (may Allah be pleased with them all)—were struck down, as if they were the defeated ones. Indeed, Ibn Hisham mentioned that when they came to Medina, people began throwing dust at the army, saying: "O you who fled! You fled in the way of Allah!" The Prophet (peace be upon him) would say: "They are not fleeing, but rather they are the ones who charge again, if Allah wills." It is narrated that Umm Salamah said to the wife of Salamah ibn Hisham ibn al-As ibn al-Mughirah: "Why do I not see Salamah attending prayer with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims?" She said: "By Allah, he cannot go out. Every time he goes out, people shout at him: 'O you who fled! You fled in the way of Allah!' until he sat in his house and did not go out." He mentioned verses by Qays al-Ya'muri in which he apologizes for what they did that day and what the people did. As he said, it contains a declaration that the people held back and hated death, and that Khalid ibn al-Walid retreated with those who were with him. Even if what he mentioned is true, it is still subject to investigation. Perhaps the best approach in reconciliation, if this recitation is authentic, is what was mentioned first. So contemplate.

In al-Bahr, our teacher, the Professor Abu Ja'far ibn al-Zubayr, narrated from Abu al-Hakam ibn Barjan that he extracted from the saying of Allah the Exalted: "The Romans have been defeated... in a few years" the opening of Jerusalem by the Muslims, specifying its time and day. At that time, Jerusalem had been overcome by the Christians. Ibn Barjan died before the time he had specified for the conquest, and after his death, by some time, the Muslims conquered it at the time Abu al-Hakam had specified. Abu Ja'far used to believe that this Abu al-Hakam would look into things of the unseen, extracting them from the Book of Allah the Exalted. End quote.

The extraction by some of the gnostics—such as Muhyi al-Din (may his secret be sanctified), al-'Iraqi, and others—of unseen matters from the Great Quran is a famous affair, based on mathematical principles and literal operations. Nothing of that has been reported from the predecessors of the nation. There is no restriction on the bounty of Allah the Almighty, and the Book of Allah the Exalted is above what occurs to the human mind. Ali (may Allah honor his face) was asked: "Did the Prophet (peace be upon him) confide in you anything he kept from others?" He said: "No, unless Allah grants a servant understanding in His Book." We ask Allah the Almighty to grant us success in understanding the secrets of His Book, for the sake of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions.

(To Allah belongs the command before and after): Meaning, before this situation and after it. This is the culmination of what has been said: meaning, before they were victors, which was the time they were defeated, and after they were defeated, which is the time they were victors. The predicate is brought forward for restriction. The meaning is that neither their being defeated first nor their being victorious last is but by the command of Allah the Exalted and His decree. "And those days We alternate among the people." Abu al-Samal and al-Jahdari narrated from al-'Aqili (min qablu wa min ba'du) with a kasrah and tanwin on both, so there is no implied possessive noun at all according to the famous opinion, as if it were said: "To Allah belongs the command qablan and ba'dan (formerly and latterly)," meaning in an earlier time and a later time. Some of them omitted the described [noun]. Al-Sakkaki mentioned that the possessive noun is implied in such cases as well, and the tanwin is a substitute for it. Al-Farra' permitted the kasrah without tanwin, and al-Zajjaj said: "It is an error, because either the addition is not implied, in which case it is tanwin-ed, or it is implied, in which case it is declined with dammah [as qablu/ba'du]." As for the estimation of its phrasing based on his saying: "Between the two arms and the forehead of the lion," it is compared despite the disparity, because the ba'd is mentioned in it, and what we are dealing with is not like that. Al-Nahhas said: "Al-Farra' has many errors in his book on the Quran, including his claim that (min qabli wa min ba'di) is permissible with kasrah without tanwin." It is only permissible (min qablin wa min ba'din) in the sense that they are indefinite, meaning "from a previous [time] and from a later [time]." Ibn Hisham leaned toward al-Farra's view in some of his books. Al-Kisa'i narrated from some of Banu Asad: (lillahi al-amru min qablin wa min ba'du), with the first being khafḍ and tanwin-ed, and the second being dammah without tanwin.

(And that day...): Meaning, and the day when the Romans overcome the Persians, the believers will rejoice.