Tafsir of Al-Ahzab 33:39

(Those who convey the messages of Allah) is an adjective for those who have passed away [the previous prophets], or it is in the nominative case, or in the accusative case, denoting an implied [pronoun] referring to them, or as a form of praise.

Abdullah [Ibn Mas’ud] recited it as balaghu (they conveyed) as a past-tense verb. Ubayy [Ibn Ka’b] recited risalata (singular: message) in the singular form to signify that the multiple messages—due to their agreement in fundamental principles and their origin from Allah the Exalted—are equivalent to a single thing, even if their specific rulings differ.

(And fear Him) meaning, they fear Him—the Exalted—in everything they perform or abandon, especially in the matter of conveying the message.

(And fear none but Allah) The description of them by restricting fear to Allah the Exalted acts as an allusion to that which emanated from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding his caution against the censure of people, considering that the way of his brother prophets was not necessarily that which should be taken as a precedent. This acts as an affirmation of what preceded in the explicit statement of the Exalted: "And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him." Some have wrongly imagined that the source of this allusion is the description of the prophets as conveyors of messages, and they interpreted the "fear" here as "fear in the matter of conveying" because of its occurrence in that context; however, there is that which is hidden [of error] in that.

(And sufficient is Allah as an Accountant) meaning, sufficient against all fears, or as one who brings to account the major and minor sins from the actions of the heart and the limbs; therefore, none other than Him should be feared. The use of the noun [Allah] in place of the pronoun [He] is because this majestic name possesses qualities that the pronoun does not.

The verse has been used as evidence that taqiyya (dissimulation/precautionary dissimulation) is not permissible for the prophets, peace be upon them, absolutely. Some of the Shia have restricted this to the conveying of the message, and they have categorized what occurred from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in this story—indicated by the words of the Exalted: "And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him"—as being based on the fact that "fear" there implies [psychological] dread, not that the intent was a sense of modesty regarding what people might say about his marriage to his adopted son's former wife, as Ibn Furak said. This [view of theirs] pertains to permissible taqiyya since it was not in the conveying of the message. To them, there is no difference between fearing ugly remarks or ill-opinion, and fearing harm, as both permit taqiyya in matters not related to conveying the message. They have long discourses on taqiyya, and it is a vast shade for their purposes. Anyone who traces the books of the sects will know that there has been excess and deficiency, correctness and confusion [in this matter].

The Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah have followed the middle path, which is the safest and most secure path for one who travels it, protecting one from error and mistake. As for the excess, it belongs to the Shia, as they have permitted—and even made obligatory, as narrated from them—the manifestation of disbelief at the slightest fear or greed. As for the deficiency, it belongs to the Khawarij and the Zaydiyyah, as they do not permit the preservation of honor, life, or wealth in the face of religion at all. The Khawarij have strange strictnesses in this regard; they even insulted and criticized Buraydah al-Aslami, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, because he—may Allah be pleased with him—would guard his horse during his prayer for fear of it escaping.

The school of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that taqiyya—which is the protection of life, honor, or wealth from enemies by manifesting a religiously forbidden act—is permissible in general terms. They divided the enemy into two categories: First: One whose enmity is based on religious difference, such as a Muslim and an infidel. Included in this is one whose enmity is based on a doctrinal difference that leads one sect to declare the other infidels, such as the Ahl al-Sunnah and the Shia. Second: One whose enmity is based on worldly goals, such as wealth or a woman.

Taqiyya is also of two types accordingly: As for the first—taqiyya from those whose enmity is based on religious difference in reality or in ruling—they stated that whoever claims faith but falls into a place where they cannot manifest their religion and what they follow due to the harassment of opponents, it is obligatory for them to migrate to a place where they can manifest it. It is not permissible for them to reside there and conceal their religion with the excuse of being weak; for the earth of Allah the Exalted is spacious. Yes, if they have another excuse, such as blindness, imprisonment, or a threat from the opponent to kill them or kill their child, father, or mother—in any manner of killing that creates a fear such that the occurrence of the feared event is deemed likely—it is permissible for them to reside and conform [to the opponent] to the extent of necessity, and it is obligatory upon them to seek a way to escape. If the threat is not like this, such as being threatened with the loss of a benefit, or with hardship that one can endure—such as imprisonment with sustenance, or light beating that does not lead to death—it is not permissible for them to conform. If death occurs as a result of this [resistance], they are a martyr.

As for the second type—taqiyya from those whose enmity is based on worldly goals—scholars have differed regarding the obligation of migration. Some said: Migration is obligatory due to the obligation of preserving wealth and honor. A group said: It is not obligatory, as migrating from that location is a worldly interest, and its abandonment does not result in a loss of religion, for the believing enemy—no matter what—does not harm their weak fellow believer just because they are a believer.

Some of the elite, by way of adjudication, said: The truth is that migration here might also be obligatory, namely when one fears the destruction of oneself or one's relatives, or excessive violation of one's honor. They also said: Even with its obligation, it is not an act of worship, for the investigation shows that not every obligation is an act of worship for which one is rewarded. Eating during a severe famine, taking precautions against known or suspected harm during sickness, avoiding poisons while in health, and the like, are obligatory matters, yet the doer is not rewarded for them. There is debate here, and the full discussion of this topic should be sought from the works of the eminent scholars. Perhaps we shall return, if Allah the Exalted wills, to mention something of that. Allah the Exalted is the Guide to the straightest path.

Something remains regarding the verse, which is what has been said: The Exalted described the messengers who have passed away, peace be upon them, as fearing no one but Allah. Yet, the Almighty informed us regarding Moses, peace be upon him, that he said: "We fear that he will commit excess against us." Is such fear anything other than fearing someone other than Allah the Exalted? How is this reconciled? I say: The response is that khashyah (awe/reverential fear) is more specific than khawf (fear).

Al-Raghib said: Khashyah is a fear tinged with reverence, and it most often arises from knowledge of the one being feared. He mentioned several verses regarding this, including this verse. The negation of the specific does not necessitate the negation of the general, for the two may coexist with the affirmation of one. This is better than what was said in response: that khashyah is more specific than khawf because it is "intense fear," and what is negated in the verse here is that [intense] fear, not the absolute fear affirmed in the case of Moses, peace be upon him. Another responded that the khashyah negated is the fear that occurs after thought and reflection, and is not of the natural human dispositions, whereas the fear affirmed is the fear that arises according to human nature at first glance. Much of the like has occurred to Moses, peace be upon him, and others of his brothers, and it is something in which there is no deficiency, as is not hidden from the perfect [scholar]. This is a good answer.

It was also said: Moses, peace be upon him, only feared that Pharaoh would hasten against him in a way that would prevent him from completing the call and manifesting the miracle, so the objective of the mission would not be realized; thus, it is a fear for the sake of Allah the Almighty. The intent of what was negated regarding the messengers is the fear other than Him—the Glorious and Exalted—meaning that one fears someone else besides Him, the Almighty, and thus neglects His obedience or commits His disobedience. And how far is the one from the other! So ponder this; may Allah the Exalted guide you.