Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:59

After the Almighty commanded those in authority—whether generally or specifically—to perform their duties and act with justice in governance, He commanded the people to obey them as part of their obedience to Him, the Almighty, and to His Messenger (peace be upon him). He, the Most High, said: {Obey Allah}, meaning: adhere to His obedience in what He has commanded you and what He has forbidden you. {And obey the Messenger}, who was sent to convey His rulings to you, in everything he commands you and forbids you.

Al-Kalbi stated that the meaning is: {Obey Allah} regarding the obligatory duties, and {Obey the Messenger} regarding the Sunnah. The former interpretation is superior. The verb was repeated, even though obedience to the Messenger is coupled with obedience to Allah, to show care for the Messenger's status (peace and blessings be upon him), to dispel the illusion that compliance is only required for what is in the Quran, and to indicate that he (peace and blessings be upon him) possesses an independence in demanding obedience that is not established for anyone else. Hence, the verb was not repeated in the Almighty’s saying: {And those in authority among you}, indicating that they do not possess the same independence in authority as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

There is disagreement regarding the meaning of "those in authority." It has been said: they are the Muslim rulers during the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and thereafter, and this includes the Caliphs, Sultans, judges, and others. It is also said: the intended meaning is the commanders of military expeditions (sariyya). This is narrated from Abu Hurairah and Maymun ibn Mihran. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Suddi—and Ibn 'Asakir from Abu Salih from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both)—that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Khalid ibn al-Walid on an expedition that included 'Ammar ibn Yasir. They traveled toward the group they intended to confront. When they reached near them, they stopped for the night. A man with two long braids came and informed the people, so they fled in the morning, except for one man who ordered his family to gather their belongings. He then approached in the darkness of the night until he reached Khalid’s camp, asking for 'Ammar ibn Yasir. He came to him and said, "O Abu al-Yaqzan, I have accepted Islam, testified that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger, and my people fled when they heard of you. I remained; will my Islam benefit me tomorrow, or should I flee?" 'Ammar said, "Rather, it will benefit you; stay." He stayed. When morning came, Khalid raided, found no one but that man, and seized him and his wealth. The news reached 'Ammar, so he went to Khalid and said, "Release the man, for he has accepted Islam and is under my protection." Khalid said, "What authority do you have to grant protection?" They disputed and escalated the matter to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Khalid said, "O Messenger of Allah, will you allow this slave, al-ajda' (the ear-mutilated), to insult me?" The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "O Khalid, do not insult 'Ammar, for whoever insults 'Ammar, Allah will insult him; whoever hates 'Ammar, Allah will hate him; and whoever curses 'Ammar, Allah will curse him." 'Ammar became angry and rose; Khalid followed him, took hold of his garment, and apologized to him, so he became satisfied. Then Allah, the Almighty, revealed this verse. The justification for this specification is that in the failure to obey them, there is neither authority nor order, which leads to great corruption.

It is also said that they are the scholars. This is narrated by more than one from Ibn 'Abbas, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah, Mujahid, al-Hasan, 'Ata', and a group. Abu al-'Aliyah supported this with the Almighty's saying: {And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those who can draw correct conclusions from it would have known it}. Indeed, the scholars are the ones who draw out and derive the rulings. Many interpreted it—and this is not far-fetched—to include everyone, because the name encompasses them all; for the rulers possess the management of military and combat affairs, while the scholars possess the preservation of the Sharia and what is lawful and what is unlawful.

Intending the scholars has been questioned due to the Almighty's saying: {And if you disagree over anything}. The address here is general to all believers, and "anything" is specific to matters of religion, as evidenced by what follows. The meaning is: "If you, O believers—you and those in authority among you—disagree over a matter of religion, then refer it back," meaning: seek counsel, {to Allah}, i.e., to His Book, {and the Messenger}, i.e., to his Sunnah. There is no doubt that this only aligns with interpreting "those in authority" as rulers, not scholars, because the common people may dispute with rulers over certain matters, whereas they cannot dispute with scholars—as the latter refers to the Mujtahidin, and the people besides them do not dispute their rulings.

Some have made the address directed toward "those in authority" as a shift in speech (iltifat) so that the inclusion of scholars might be valid, for the Mujtahidin may argue and debate with one another. Thus, the meaning would be a command for them to adhere to what the evidence necessitates. It is also said that, intending the broader meaning, the address could be for the believers, and the disagreement would be between them and those in authority regarding some individuals—namely, the rulers.

Furthermore, the obligation of obedience to them holds only as long as they are upon the truth; one is not obligated to obey them in what contradicts the Sharia. Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded from 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "There is no obedience to any creature in disobedience to Allah." He, along with Ahmad, the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim), Abu Dawud, and al-Nasa'i, also recorded from him that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) sent an expedition and appointed a man from the Ansar as their leader. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to listen to him and obey. The leader became angry at them over something and said, "Gather firewood for me." They gathered it. He said, "Light a fire," and they did. He said, "Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not order you to listen to me and obey?" They said, "Yes." He said, "Enter it." Some looked at others and said, "We only fled to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) from the Fire." His anger subsided, and the fire went out. When they came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), they mentioned this to him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If they had entered it, they would not have come out of it. Obedience is only in what is recognized as good (al-ma'ruf)."

Does this include the permissible (mubah) or not? There is disagreement. It is said that obedience to them in permissible matters is not obligatory because no one is permitted to forbid what Allah has made lawful, nor to permit what Allah has forbidden. It is also said that it is obligatory, as al-Haskafi and others stated. Some advanced Shafi'i scholars said: It is obligatory to obey the Imam in his commands and prohibitions as long as he does not command a forbidden act. Others said: What appears is that what he commands which contains no general interest need not be obeyed except outwardly; unlike that which involves a general interest, for it is obligatory inwardly as well. The same applies to the permissible act that involves harm to the one commanded.

Furthermore, is the criterion for the permissible or recommended act commanded by the leader based on the belief of the leader? If he commands a permissible act which he believes to be Sunnah, while the commanded person sees it as only permissible, must it be obeyed only outwardly, or according to the belief of the commanded person—meaning it must be obeyed inwardly? And vice-versa? All of this is plausible. The generality of their statements regarding the issue of the Imam commanding people to fast for rain (istisqa') suggests the latter, because they did not distinguish whether the fasting commanded there was recommended according to the leader or not. This is supported by what they established in the chapter on Iqtida' (following an Imam in prayer): that the criterion is the belief of the follower, not the leader. I have not come across what our own scholars (Hanafis) have said on this issue, so it should be reviewed.

Those who deny analogy (qiyas) used this verse as evidence, arguing that Allah ordered the referral to the Book and the Sunnah, but not to analogy. The truth is that the verse is evidence for establishing analogy; indeed, it contains all the legal proofs. Obeying Allah means acting upon the Book; obeying the Messenger means acting upon the Sunnah; and referring the disputed matter to both implies analogy. For referring that which is disputed and not explicitly mentioned in the text to that which is explicit can only be done through analogy (tamthil) and building upon it—and analogy is nothing other than that. It is also known from His saying: {If you disagree} that in the absence of disagreement, one acts upon what is agreed upon, which is Ijma' (consensus).

{If you believe in Allah and the Last Day} is connected to the last command given regarding the place of dispute, as it is the one requiring a warning against opposition. The jawab (consequent) of the conditional is omitted, according to the majority of the Basrans, relying on the indication provided by what is mentioned, following the structure: "If you are my son, then obey me." For belief in Allah necessitates compliance with His command, as does belief in the Last Day, due to the punishment therein for opposition.

{That}, meaning the referred action commanded—which is of great significance—is {better} for you and more suitable, {and better in the end} (i.e., in consequence), as stated by Qatadah, al-Suddi, and Ibn Zayd. The superlative form in both places is intended to signal perfection, contrary to the literal linguistic placement. The justification for placing the first before the second is that people's sights are usually set on what benefits them. It is also said: {Better} for you in this world, {and better} in consequence in the Hereafter. The order is more evident. Al-Zajjaj says the meaning is: {Better in consequence} than your own interpretation of it without referring to a source from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Prophet. Thus, ta'wil is either in the sense of returning to the outcome and consequence, or in the sense of explaining the intended meaning of an expression not apparent from its literal sense. Both are true, even if the latter prevails in common usage; hence it is contrasted with tafsir.