**"So when you meet those who disbelieve..."**
(So when you meet those who disbelieve) serves to establish the order of the command contained within its scope based on what preceded it. For the error of the disbelievers' deeds and their disappointment, alongside the righteousness of the believers' states and their success, are matters that necessitate that each of the two parties be treated with the rulings appropriate to them. That is: if such is the case, then when you encounter them in battle:
(Then strike the necks). Al-Zamakhshari said: "Meeting" (liqa’) here refers to war. "Striking" (darb) is in the accusative case as a verbal noun (masdar) acting in place of a verb that has been omitted; the original phrase was "Strike (idribu) the necks with a striking (darban)." The verb was omitted, the verbal noun was brought forward and substituted in its place, while being annexed to the object (idafah). The omission of the verb that governs the accusative in such instances—where the verbal noun is annexed to its object—is one of the positions where omission is obligatory, as detailed in extensive grammar books. This does not include phrases like "striking Zayd" (darban Zaydan), as Ibn Usfur explicitly stated.
More than one scholar has noted that there is brevity and emphasis in what has been mentioned. There is no dispute regarding the brevity. As for the emphasis, the apparent view is that a verbal noun after its operator is omitted acts as an intensifier. However, Al-Hamasi said in the marginalia of al-Tashrih: "The verbal noun in this case is a source of emphasis in origin, but not presently, because it has become equivalent to the verb it replaced. Thus, it is neither an intensifier, nor does it denote a kind or a number."
(Striking the necks) is a metonymy for killing. It is expressed in this manner to signify that the killing should be done by striking the neck whenever possible, portraying it in the most heinous form. For striking the neck involves severing the head, which is the most noble part of the body and the repository of its senses, leaving it cast away in a repulsive state—may Allah protect us. It has also been mentioned that this expression is intended to embolden the believers by showing they are so superior to their enemies that they can kill them by striking their necks in battle.
(Until when you have thoroughly slaughtered them)—that is, when you have inflicted death upon them with intensity and in great numbers. This is a metaphor borrowed from the thickening of liquids (thukhn) which restricts their movement. The intent is: "until you have killed many of them and are able to seize those who have not yet been killed."
(Then bind the bonds firmly)—that is, take them captive and guard them. The binding—and likewise what follows—is applicable to those among them who are captured after the slaughter, not to those who have already been "slaughtered" (in the previous sense), for one who has been slaughtered is not bound, nor is favor shown to them, nor are they ransomed, as they are already dead. Or, the meaning is: "until you have burdened them with wounds and the like, such that they cannot stand, then capture them and guard them." The binding and what follows is applicable to the "slaughtered" in this latter sense, as they are those who have not yet reached the point of death but have become too heavy to move, becoming "slaughtered" yet not dead or continuing in their movement. "Slaughtering" (ithkhan) here is also a metaphor.
(Al-wathaq) is originally a verbal noun, like "salvation" (khalas), but it is intended here to mean "that with which one is bound" (the fetters). It is also recited as al-withaq with a kasra, which is the name for the object itself. The use of the fi'al form to denote an instrument, like hizam (belt) or rikab (stirrup), is rare and contrary to standard analogy. The apparent sense of some scholars' discourse is that both the fatha and kasra forms are names for that which is used to bind. Perhaps the intent here is to clarify the meaning.
(Then either favor afterwards or ransom)—that is, "Then either you show favor by granting a favor, or you ransom by taking a ransom." The discourse is an elaboration of the consequence of what was mentioned before it, namely, the "binding of bonds." The omission of the governor for the verbal noun in such cases is also a recognized answer. Among such examples is the verse: "I will strive, and either [grant] the warding off of a reality feared, or the attainment of the request and the hope." Abu al-Baqa’ allowed that both "favor" (mannan) and "ransom" (fida’) could be in the accusative as objects of an omitted verb—that is, "or you treat them with favor or accept ransom from them." This is not as Abu Hayyan claimed regarding it being a strictly grammatical analysis.
Ibn Kathir, in a narration from Shibl, recited it as wa-amma fadan (with a fatha and shortening, like 'asa). Abu Hatim claimed that it is not permissible to shorten it because it is a verbal noun (fadaytuhu). Al-Shihab said: "There is no regard for him, for there are four dialects for it: fatha and kasra, both with prolongation and shortening, and a fifth dialect of indeclinability with a kasra, as related by reliable sources." In al-Kashf, citing al-Sihah, it is stated: "If the first letter of fida’ is kasra, it is prolonged and shortened; if it is fatha, it is shortened." Among the Arabs, some give the hamza a kasra—that is, they make it indeclinable upon the kasra—specifically when it is adjacent to the preposition lam, because it is a noun acting as a verb in the sense of a supplication. Al-Asma'i recited the verse of Al-Nabigha: "Gently, may I be a ransom for you." This kasra is accompanied by nunation, as is clarified in al-Bahr.
The apparent meaning of the verse, according to what Al-Suyuti mentioned in Ahkam al-Qur'an al-'Azim, is the prohibition of killing after capture. The Hasan (al-Basri) also held this view. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Marduyah narrated from him that he said: "Captives were brought to Al-Hajjaj, and he handed a man to Ibn 'Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both—to kill him. Ibn 'Umar said: 'We were not commanded to do this. Allah the Exalted only said: "Until when you have slaughtered them, then bind the bonds firmly, then either favor afterwards or ransom."'"
There is a difference of opinion regarding the ruling on captives. The majority held that the Imam has a choice: if he wishes, he may execute them if they do not embrace Islam, because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) executed 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt, Tu'aymah ibn 'Adi, and Al-Nadr ibn al-Harith—the one about whom his sister composed verses addressing the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), saying: "What would it have harmed you if you had shown favor? For often a youth shows favor while he is full of rage." Also, because executing them completely eliminates the source of their corruption. No individual soldier has the right to kill a captive on his own. If he does so without necessity—such as fearing harm from the captive—the Imam may discipline him if it contradicts the intended policy, but he is not liable for anything.
If he wishes, he may enslave them, as this repels their evil while providing great benefit to the people of Islam. If he wishes, he may leave them as dhimmi free people under the protection of the Muslims, as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did with the people of al-Sawad, except for the captives of the Arab polytheists and the apostates, for whom no tribute (jizyah) is accepted, nor is it permissible to enslave them; rather, the ruling for them is either Islam or the sword. If captives embrace Islam after being taken, he does not kill them, because their evil is repelled by Islam. However, it is permissible to enslave them, for Islam does not negate slavery as a penalty for original disbelief; it occurred after the cause of ownership was established, namely, the seizure of the belligerent non-Arab polytheist. This is contrary to if they embraced Islam before capture, in which case they would be free, as it is Islam before the cause of ownership was established.
There is no ransoming of captives in one of the two narrations from Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him), as this provides aid to disbelief—for the disbeliever who is ransomed may return to being at war with us, and repelling his belligerence is better than rescuing the Muslim. If he remains in their hands, it is only a trial for him, whereas returning their captive to them is a harm to the entire Muslim community.
The other narration from him is that ransoming is permissible. This is the position of Muhammad, Abu Yusuf, Imam Al-Shafi'i, Malik, and Ahmad, except for women, as they do not permit ransoming with them. Ahmad prohibited ransoming with their children. This is the narration in al-Siyar al-Kabir. It is said: "This is the more apparent of the two narrations from Imam Abu Hanifa." Abu Yusuf said: "Ransoming with captives is permissible before the division [of spoils], not after." According to Muhammad, it is permissible in any case.
The reasoning provided by the Imams for the permissibility of ransoming is that rescuing a Muslim is superior to killing a disbeliever, due to the benefit of [saving the Muslim], and because the sanctity of the Muslim is great. The mentioned harm that returns to us is countered by the harm [to the enemy] in the form of the Muslim who is rescued from them. It is a harm to one individual being countered by a similar one, so they cancel each other out, and the virtue of rescuing the Muslim and enabling him to worship Allah the Exalted remains, for therein lies an aspect of superiority.
Furthermore, this has been established from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, 'Abd ibn Humayd, and Ibn Jarir narrated from 'Imran ibn Husayn that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ransomed two Muslim men for one man from the polytheists.
Muhammad’s argument is also supported by what Muslim narrated from Iyas ibn Salamah, from his father, Salamah, who said: "We went out with Abu Bakr—may Allah be pleased with him—whom the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had appointed over us..." to the end of the hadith. It says: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) met me the next day in the market and said: 'O Salamah, give me the woman'—meaning the one Abu Bakr had given him as a spoil of war. I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I am pleased with her and I have not yet unveiled her.' Then the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) met me the next day in the market and said: 'O Salamah, give me the woman; may your father be lost [in awe of you].' I said: 'She is yours, O Messenger of Allah. By Allah, I have not unveiled her.' So the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent her and ransomed with her a group of Muslims who had been captured in Mecca."
One does not ransom a captive if he embraces Islam while he is in our hands, because it is of no use unless he is willing, and he is secure regarding his Islam. It is permissible because it results in the rescue of a Muslim without harming another Muslim. As for ransoming with wealth, it is not permissible according to the famous view of the Hanafi school, because, as was explained regarding ransoming with Muslims, it returns them to being at war with us. In al-Siyar al-Kabir, it says there is no harm in it if the Muslims are in need. It is said: "This is based on the captives of Badr, for there is no doubt in the need of the Muslims at the time of their extreme necessity; let the ransoming that took place at Badr be interpreted as [being] with wealth."
As for showing favor (mann) to captives—that is, releasing them to the land of war without compensation—it is not permissible according to Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Ahmad. Imam Al-Shafi'i permitted it, because the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) showed favor to a group of captives from Badr, among them Abu al-'As ibn al-Rabi'. Ibn Abi Ishaq mentioned this with his chain of transmission, as did Abu Dawud through his chain to 'Aisha: "When the people of Mecca sent for the ransom of their captives, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) sent for the ransom of Abu al-'As with wealth, and sent with it a necklace that Khadija had given her upon her marriage to Abu al-'As. When the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saw that, he felt extreme tenderness for them and said to his companions: 'If you see fit to release her captive for her and return what is hers to her, then do so.' They did so, rejoicing in it." Al-Hakim recorded it and authenticated it, adding: "The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had stipulated that she send Zaynab to him, and she did." Also, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) showed favor to Thumamah ibn Uthal al-Hanafi, the leader of the people of Yamama, who then embraced Islam and his Islam was sincere; his hadith is in Sahih Muslim from Abu Hurayrah.
It suffices that which is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement: "If Al-Mut'im ibn 'Adi were alive and then spoke to me regarding these filthy ones"—meaning the captives of Badr—"I would have left them for him." For he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) informed us—and he is the Truthful, the Believed—that he would release them if Al-Mut'im had asked him. The release in that hypothetical scenario would not be established unless it were religiously permissible, due to his infallibility. The fact that it did not happen because the condition upon which it was attached did not occur does not negate its religious permissibility.
Evidence is also drawn from the verse we are discussing, for Allah the Exalted gives a choice in it between showing favor and ransoming. The apparent meaning is that "favor" (mann) means release without charge. The interpretation that it means "to favor them by sparing them from death and keeping them enslaved" or "letting them go to accept the jizyah and making them dhimmis" is contrary to the apparent meaning. Some souls find the taste of the favors mentioned to be sweeter than this [latter] interpretation of "favor."
Some Hanafis answered that the verse is abrogated by the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them" (Surat al-Tawbah), for it necessitates the impermissibility of showing favor, and likewise the impermissibility of ransoming, and it is the last surah revealed regarding this matter. They claimed that the favor and ransoming that took place were only in the affair of Badr, which preceded that [surah]. Even if anything of that occurred after Badr, it was also before that surah.
The statement regarding abrogation came from Ibn 'Abbas, Qatadah, Al-Dahhak, and Mujahid in narrations mentioned by Al-Jalal al-Suyuti in Al-Durr al-Manthur. The scholar Ibn al-Humam said: "It may be said that this—meaning what is in Surat al-Tawbah—is regarding other than captives, as evidenced by the permissibility of enslaving them. Thus, it is known that the killing commanded is regarding others." What he mentioned regarding the permissibility of enslavement is not absolute, for, as you have learned, it is not permissible to enslave Arab polytheists.
(Until the war lays down its burdens)—that is, its equipment and weights, such as weaponry and others. Al-A'sha said: "I prepared for war its burdens: long spears, spirited horses, and coats of mail from the weaving of David, transported to the war caravan after caravan." In its origin, it refers to loads, and it is used metaphorically for what was mentioned as a tashrihiyya metaphor. It is possible that "war" is an allusion (makniyya), by likening it to a human who carries a load on his head or back, and that which is established for it is fixed through imagination. The discourse of Al-Kashshaf is more inclined toward this.
It is said: "It is the loads of the warrior, attributed to war metaphorically in terms of genitive relation, and giving precedence to [the concept of] war over the war-mounts." The attribution of "laying down" to war is also metaphorical. This is not particularly strong. Some eminent scholars considered the discourse to be a parable (tamthil). The meaning is "until the war ends." He said: "It is possible that the intention of this is from the category of metaphor branching from metonymy," as in his saying: "She cast down her staff and settled, and the place of migration became established." It is an allusion to the end of travel and settling down.
It is said: al-awzar is the plural of wizr, meaning "sin," which here signifies polytheism and disobedience. "Lays down" (tada'u) means "to leave" metaphorically, and its attribution to war is metaphorical or by estimating an omitted word. The meaning: "Until the people of war lay down their polytheism and disobedience." The objection to this is that it is not considered good to attribute awzar (in the sense of sins) to "war."
For Al-Shafi'i—may Allah have mercy on him—and those who hold his view, "until" (hatta) is an end-point for the striking. The meaning is "Strike their necks until the war ends." This is not a substitute for the first, nor an emphasis of it, based on what they have established: that hatta entering upon the conditional idha is either an initiation or an end-point for the binding, or for the favor and ransom together, or for the sum of His saying: "Then strike the necks," etc. The meaning is that these rulings are applicable to them until there is no war with the polytheists due to the disappearance of their power. It is said: "Until the descent of 'Isa (peace be upon him)." This is reported from Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Al-Hasan. There is a hadith that supports this; Ahmad, Al-Nasa'i, and others narrated from Salamah ibn Nufayl that he said: "While I was sitting with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), a man came and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, the horses have been set loose, the weapons have been laid down, and a people claim there is no fighting and that the war has laid down its burdens.' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'They have lied! Now the fighting has come, and a group of my nation will continue to fight in the way of Allah; those who oppose them will not harm them. Allah will cause the hearts of a people to deviate so that He may provide them [with wealth] from them. You will continue to fight until the Hour is established, and goodness will remain tied to the forelocks of horses until the Hour is established. The war will not lay down its burdens until Ya'juj and Ma'juj emerge.'"
For those who say there is no favor or ransom today, this is an end-point for the favor and ransom. If it is carried to mean "war" as "the war of Badr," the definite article is for a prior mention. The meaning is: "Show them favor and ransom them until the war of Badr lays down its burdens." And [it is an] end-point for the striking and the binding if it is carried as a generic term. The meaning is that they are to be killed and captured until the genus of war lays down its burdens—meaning the polytheists no longer have power. It should not be made an end-point for favor and ransom while intending the generic. In the claim of its permissibility and the commitment to abrogation, there is much discussion, so reflect on it.
(That)—that is, the affair is that, or "do that." It is in the place of an nominative as the predicate of an omitted subject, or in the place of an accusative as the object of an omitted verb. The indication is to what was pointed to by His saying: "Then strike the necks," etc., not to what preceded from the beginning of the surah up to here, because "do" cannot apply to everything that preceded. Upon the nominative reading, the noble structure holds if it is not carried to mean that, because what follows is a discourse regarding them.
(And if Allah willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them)—He could have taken retribution from them by some means of destruction, such as an earthquake, tremors, drowning, or a devastating death.
(But that He may test some of you by others)—but He, glory be to Him, commanded you to fight to test the believers by the disbelievers, so that they may strive against them and obtain the reward, and that what they have of immense virtue may be immortalized in the chronicles of time. And [to test] the disbelievers by the believers, so that He, the Almighty and Majestic, may treat them with some of His retribution, whereby some of them might take heed, and it becomes a cause for their conversion to Islam. The lam is linked to the omitted verb that we mentioned.
(And those who are killed in the way of Allah)—they are martyred. The majority read qatilu—that is, they struggled. Al-Jahdari, with a different narration from him, read qutilu with a fatha on the qaf and ta without an alif. Zayd ibn Thabit, Al-Hasan, Abu Raja', 'Isa, and Al-Jahdari also read quttilu in the passive voice with a shadda on the ta.
(He will never let their deeds go to waste)—He will never lose them, glory be to Him. 'Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—read yudillu in the passive voice, with a'malahum in the nominative as the substitute for the subject. It was also read yadullu with a fatha on the ya from dalla (to lose/stray), with a'malahum in the nominative as the actor. Regarding the verse, Qatadah said, as narrated from him by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim: "It was related to us that it was revealed on the day of Uhud, while the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was in the mountain pass, wounds and killing had spread among them. The polytheists cried out on that day: 'Exalted be Hubal!' and the Muslims cried out: 'Allah is Higher and More Majestic!' The polytheists cried out: 'A day for a day, like Badr! War is a bucket; sometimes ours, sometimes yours!' The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'Allah is our Protector, and you have no protector. Verily, the killed are different: as for our killed, they are alive and provided for; and as for your killed, they are in the Fire, being punished.'" From this, the rationale for the reading quttilu in the form of taf'il is understood.
