Surah Al-Fath

It was revealed in Medina, according to what has been narrated from Ibn Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them). However, the reports indicate that it was revealed during a journey, not in the city of Medina itself, and this is the correct view. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ahmad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and a group [of scholars] recorded from Ibn Mas‘ud, who said: "We were returning from al-Hudaybiyyah with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the sixth year after the Hijrah. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had set out for it on Monday, at the beginning of Dhu al-Qi'dah, and he stayed there for over ten days—some say twenty days. Then he departed. While we were traveling, the revelation came to him; and whenever it came to him, it would weigh heavily upon him. Then it lifted from him, and he was filled with such joy as Allah willed. He informed us that it had been revealed to him: 'Indeed, We have granted you a clear victory.'"

Ahmad, al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Hibban, and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Umar ibn al-Khattab, who said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on a journey. I asked him about something three times, but he did not answer me. I urged my camel forward, then I rode ahead of the people, fearing that something might be revealed in the Quran regarding me. Before long, I heard someone calling out for me. I felt terrified, thinking that something had been revealed concerning me. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then said: 'Tonight, a Surah was revealed to me that is dearer to me than the world and all that is in it: Indeed, We have granted you a clear victory... so that Allah may forgive you what preceded of your sin and what will follow.'"

In a sahih (authentic) hadith recorded by Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and others from Mujammi' ibn Jariyah al-Ansari, there is evidence that it was revealed after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) departed from al-Hudaybiyyah, specifically at Kara' al-Ghamim. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recited it to the people while he was on his mount. In a narration by Ibn Sa'd from him, there is evidence that it was at Dajnān. This is also attributed to al-Biqa'i. Dajnān—with a dād (ض), a jīm (ج), and two nūns (ن) separated by an alif, with the prosodic pattern of sakrān (سَكْرَان) as stated in al-Qamus—is a mountain near Mecca. This and similar reports suggest its revelation between Mecca and Medina.

Such a case is considered "Medinan" according to the well-known definition: that which was revealed after the Hijrah, whether it was revealed in Medina, in Mecca, or during any journey. Conversely, "Meccan" is that which was revealed before the Hijrah. However, according to the opinion that "Meccan" is what was revealed in Mecca, even after the Hijrah—and this includes, as Jalal al-Suyuti said, the outskirts like Mina, Arafat, and al-Hudaybiyyah (or even, according to al-Hidayah, some parts of these, and according to al-Muhib al-Tabari, most of them lie within the Sacred Precincts of Mecca)—and "Medinan" is what was revealed in Medina, including its outskirts like Uhud, Badr, and Sal', then based on the opinion that it was revealed near Mecca, it would be considered Meccan. Thus, the statement that the Surah is Medinan without disagreement is clearly questionable.

It contains twenty-nine verses by consensus. It is not hidden that its placement here is sound, for "victory" (fath), which means triumph, is consequent to combat. In the mention of the sincere believers, the hypocrites, and the polytheists, there is great significance. Furthermore, in the previous [Surah], the command for seeking forgiveness was mentioned, and here the occurrence of forgiveness is mentioned. The "good word" was mentioned there in its noble expression, and it was alluded to here as the "word of righteousness" (kalimat al-taqwa), based on the most famous opinions regarding it, as you will come to know, God willing—and other points besides these.

In al-Bahr, it is mentioned regarding its relevance to the preceding chapter that since it was stated [in the previous Surah]: "But if you turn away," which is an address to the disbelievers of Quraysh, Allah Almighty informed His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of the great victory. Through this victory, substitution occurred, and everyone who was in Mecca became secure, and it became a "Home of Faith" (Dar Iman), which holds deep significance. The aforementioned reports indicate its high stature. In the hadith of Mujammi' ibn Jariyah, which Ibn Sa'd recorded from him, it is said that when Jibril (peace be upon him) brought it down, he said: "We congratulate you, O Messenger of Allah." When Jibril (peace be upon him) congratulated him, the Muslims congratulated him as well. It is narrated that whoever recites it on the first night of Ramadan will be preserved throughout that year, though this has not been established in an authentic report. And Allah Almighty knows best.

(Indeed, We have opened for you): This is an announcement regarding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, according to the majority of scholars. This is also narrated from Ibn Abbas, Anas, al-Sha'bi, and al-Zuhri. Ibn Atiyyah said: "This is the correct view."

The origin of al-fath (opening/conquest) is the removal of a closure. Opening a city, as stated in al-Kashshaf, means overcoming it—whether by force or by treaty, through war or otherwise—because it remains closed off until it is captured; once it is captured and falls into one's possession, it has been "opened." This treaty was called a fath because of the shared outcome of manifestation and victory over the polytheists. For, as al-Kalbi said, the polytheists only requested the treaty after the Muslims had manifested supremacy over them. According to Ibn Abbas, the Muslims had pelted them—meaning with arrows and stones, as has been said—until they drove them into their dwellings. Alternatively, it is called a fath because that treaty became the cause for the Conquest of Makkah. Al-Zuhri said: "There was no greater conquest than the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah; the polytheists mingled with the Muslims, heard their speech, and Islam took hold in their hearts. Within three years, a vast number of people embraced Islam, and the community of Islam grew in size through them." Al-Qurtubi said: "Those years did not pass before the Muslims came to Makkah with ten thousand [soldiers] and conquered it."

Applying the name [of fath to the treaty] is, in the first case, a type of isti'arah taba'iyyah (dependent metaphor), regardless of how you construe it. In the second case, it is a type of majaz mursal (synecdoche), whether we classify it as a dependent metaphor or not, as the cause is called by the name of the effect. There is no obstacle to having two types of relationships between two things, such that the use of one for the other is considered a metaphor from each perspective—much like the word mashfar (muzzle) for the thick lip of a human.

Attributing the fath—intended here as the treaty, which is an action of the Messenger (peace be upon him)—to Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He) is a metaphorical attribution of an effect to the Facilitator and Creator. This serves to magnify the significance of both the treaty and the Messenger (peace be upon him). It should not be argued that since it is established that all actions are created by Allah, attributing the treaty to Him is a literal attribution to the One to whom it belongs, and thus not metaphorical. We respond: "To whom it belongs" refers to the one to whom the action is conventionally attributed, whether it is created by Allah or by another, as al-Sa'd explicitly stated in al-Mutawwal. How could it be otherwise? If that were the case, the attribution of all actions to anyone other than Allah would be metaphorical, and to Him alone would be literal, such as prayer, fasting, and other acts.

The researcher Mirza Jan stated: It is possible to frame the verse as a isti'arah makniyyah (implicit metaphor), or that it intends the creation and bringing-into-existence of the treaty, or that the metaphor lies in the grammatical structure used for attribution, which was then applied to a different subject, or that it is a case of isti'arah tamthiliyyah (parabolic metaphor). These four perspectives are applicable to every instance of majaz 'aqli (rational metaphor), such as [the phrase] "The spring brought forth the plants." Scholars have explicitly discussed the first three. Some have claimed that the treaty is something attributed to Allah literally, and thus needs none of these explanations—but this view is not without its issues.

It is also possible that this is an announcement that the polytheists at Hudaybiyyah were made defeated, fearful, and seeking a treaty, with fath being a metaphor for that state, and its attribution to Allah being literal. Some of the Companions were unaware that what happened at Hudaybiyyah was a fath until the Messenger (peace be upon him) clarified it for them. Al-Bayhaqi recorded from Urwah that the Messenger (peace be upon him) returned from Hudaybiyyah, and a man from his companions said: "By Allah, this is not a conquest; we were turned away from the House, our sacrificial animals were turned back, and the Messenger of Allah stayed at Hudaybiyyah while two Muslim men who had escaped were turned back." The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) heard this and said: "What an evil thing to say! Nay, it is the greatest of conquests. The polytheists were pleased to push you away with their lances from their lands, they asked you for terms, and they desired peace from you after they had hated what they hated of you. Allah has given you victory over them and returned you safe, victorious, and rewarded. This is the greatest of conquests! Have you forgotten the day of Uhud, when you were climbing [away] and not looking back at anyone while I was calling you from your rear? Have you forgotten the day of the Confederates, when they came at you from above you and from below you, and eyes grew wild, hearts reached the throats, and you thought thoughts about Allah?" The Muslims replied: "Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth. It is indeed the greatest of conquests. By Allah, O Prophet of Allah, we did not think as you mentioned; you are more knowledgeable of Allah and of affairs than we are."

The benefit of announcing the fath in these two ways—concerning those other than him (peace be upon him)—is because the Messenger (peace be upon him) already knew this, as he knew the implication of that benefit. The "others" refers to those Companions who were not present at the fath and others, because those who were present knew it before the revelation. Some say that those present only knew that a treaty had occurred or that the polytheists were in a state of requesting it, but they did not know it was a "conquest," as the report suggests. Even if one concedes they knew that, they did not grasp the magnitude of its significance, as indicated by the attribution to the "We" of greatness and the announcement of it in that regard.

Some researchers said: Perhaps the intended benefit is that this was for [the sake of] forgiveness and what follows it, so it is possible the benefit applies to him (peace be upon him) as well. I say: Scholars have stated that declarative sentences are often used for purposes other than stating a judgment or its implication, such as [the verses]: "My Lord, I have delivered a female," "My Lord, my bones have become weak," and "Those of the believers who sit [at home] are not equal," among countless others. Thus, it is possible that the purpose of mentioning it here is to bestow a favor, not to convey a judgment or its implication, and there is no metaphor in that or similar cases, as indicated by the scholar Abd al-Hakim al-Sialkuti in his marginalia on al-Mutawwal.

In al-Risalah al-Jundiyyah, it is stated that the declarative structure in such cases is shifted to the performative, and the metaphor lies only in the structure, not in the constituents or the whole. According to the author of the Risalah, this is a majaz mufrad (single metaphor), and the word is greater than the literal and normative utterance. Some say it is a majaz murakkab (compound metaphor), and it is not limited to the parabolic type; its verification is in its proper place. The emphasis with inna (indeed) is for the sake of concern, not to refute denial. It is also said that it is because the judgment, due to its magnitude, is a target for denial; or because some listeners denied that what had occurred was a conquest. Similar things are said regarding the repetition of a judgment.

Mujahid said: The intended fath is the conquest of Khaybar, a large city in the north with fortresses and farms, eight buruds from Madinah toward Syria. The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) departure—as Ibn Ishaq said and as Hafiz Ibn Hajar preferred—was at the end of Muharram in the year seven. He stayed at its siege for ten-odd nights until he conquered it. It is reported from Malik, and Ibn Hazm was certain, that it was at the end of the year six. They reconcile this by saying that those who say "year six" base it on the start of the year being the month of the true Hijrah, which is Rabi' al-Awwal. The statement of Sheikh Abu Hamid in al-Ta'liqah that the Khaybar expedition was in year five is a mistake, as is the report from Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Abi Shaybah from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that it was on the eighteenth of Ramadan. Perhaps the original [text] was Hunayn, then it was changed—even so, it requires explanation. Khaybar was conquered by the hands of the people of Hudaybiyyah; none of those who stayed behind participated. Thus, the conquest is a reality, and its attribution to Allah is in the same manner as you have heard. The emphasis with inna and the repetition of the judgment are for the sake of concern. Expressing this in the past tense—even though it had not occurred on the day of revelation, based on what is narrated from al-Miswar ibn Makhramah that the surah was revealed from beginning to end between Makkah and Madinah—is a case of majaz al-musharafa (metaphor of anticipation), similar to "Whoever kills someone [is punished as if he killed all of humanity]," or the former case, like "Indeed, I see myself pressing wine." Their difference in nominal or verbal form does not harm [the validity]. There is another perspective which will be known from what follows, if Allah wills.

A group holds that it is the Conquest of Makkah. It is, as stated in Zad al-Ma'ad, the "Greatest Conquest," through which Allah (Exalted be He) strengthened His religion, saved His land, purified His Sanctuary, and the dwellers of the heavens rejoiced at it. Its banners of glory were raised to the heights of the stars, and people entered the religion of Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He) in multitudes thereafter. The face of the age shone with brightness and joy. It occurred in the year eight, or, in one report, [year eight] and a half. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) departed—as Ahmad recorded with a sound chain from Abu Sa'id—two nights before the end of Ramadan, and Makkah was conquered on the thirteenth, as narrated from al-Zuhri. It is also narrated from a group that the conquest was ten days before the end of Ramadan, and other views exist. He (peace be upon him) had with him ten thousand Muslims—or, it is said, twelve thousand; both can be reconciled. According to al-Shafi'i, the conquest was by treaty—a view also narrated from Ahmad—because of the safety given on the pass of Dhuran: "Whoever enters the house of Abu Sufyan is safe, and whoever enters the Mosque is safe," and because the houses were not divided among the conquerors. The majority maintain that it was by force ('anwah), due to the explicit command to fight and its execution by Khalid ibn Walid, and his (peace be upon him) saying, "It was made lawful for me for an hour of the day." Such safety is not called a treaty unless those to whom it was offered committed to desisting from fighting, and the authentic reports show that the Quraysh did not commit to this. The failure to divide the houses does not necessitate that it was not by force; a city may be conquered by force, but its people may be favored by leaving them their houses.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) stayed after the conquest for fifteen nights in the report of al-Bukhari, seventeen in Abu Dawud, eighteen in al-Tirmidhi, and nineteen in another. The full account is in the books of Sirah. Abu Hayyan found this view the most likely, stating that it fits the end of the previous surah, where Allah (Exalted be He) said: "Here you are, you call..." [3:167]. He explained that He (Majestic and Exalted) conquered Makkah for them, they took spoils, and they obtained multiples of what they had spent; if they had been stingy, that would have been lost to them, so their stinginess would only be against themselves. Furthermore, when Allah (Exalted be He) said: "You are the superior, and Allah is with you," He demonstrated His proof through the Conquest of Makkah, for they were indeed the superior. Moreover, when He (Exalted be He) said: "Do not weaken and call for peace," this was evident in the Conquest of Makkah, as no weakness overcame them, nor did they call for a treaty; rather, the chiefs of Quraysh came seeking safety and surrendering. This is clear relative to the view that the fath refers to the Conquest of Hudaybiyyah. As for the view that it refers to the conquest of Khaybar, it is not the same.

Some prefer the view of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah over the Conquest of Makkah on the grounds that the promise of the Conquest of Makkah comes explicitly in this surah: "Allah has certainly shown the vision to His Messenger... you will surely enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills..." If this fath were taken to mean that, it would be a confirmation, whereas if it is taken as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, it would be an initiation (ta'sis), and initiation is better than confirmation. Some preferred it over the view that it was the conquest of Khaybar for the same reason, because the conquest of Khaybar is mentioned later as well. There is room for discussion here. The repetition [of the greatness] is as mentioned before, as is the attribution to the pronoun of majesty. In fact, this fath is more deserving of concern and the magnification of the matter, to the point that it is said that its attribution to Allah is because it is one of the strange and miraculous things that Allah (Exalted be He) creates at the hands of His prophets (peace be upon them), like the throwing of the pebbles referred to in His saying: "And you threw not when you threw, but it was Allah Who threw." This is contrary to the apparent meaning; the consensus is that there is a rational metaphor in the statement, which contains the aforementioned possibilities.

Some researchers said: It is possible to say that the intent here is regarded either by omission or by majaz mursal, as in His saying: "When you rise for prayer," and His saying: "When you recite the Qur'an, seek refuge in Allah," according to most scholars. Such interpretation is said to be consistent in voluntary actions. Some claimed that fath is a metaphor for its facilitation and easing; this is something that does not depend on the actual occurrence of the conquest to be in the future relative to the time of revelation. Do you not see that Musa (peace be upon him) asked his Lord: "Ease for me my task," to make his affair—his vicegerency in the land and what accompanies it—easy? He was answered in the moment of asking: "You have been granted your request, O Musa," even though he had not yet commenced anything. Taking it as a promise to grant the request is contrary to the apparent meaning. You know that the view of the majority is more apparent and eloquent. The arrival of the future in the form of the past tense, to position it as a certainty, carries a grandeur and indication of the high status of the one reported about, as in al-Kashshaf. This is because—as it is said—it indicates that all times are equal to Allah (Exalted be He), that what is awaited is as certain as anything else, that when He (Exalted be He) wills a thing, it happens inevitably, and that due to the majesty of the matter, when He reports on an event, it is as if it is already existing due to its proximate and remote causes.

Others said more. The matter of the past tense in the speech of Allah (Exalted be He) is considered problematic, based on the proof of the eternal Kalam Nafsi (Self-Speech), due to the necessity of lying, as the truthfulness of speech requires the prior occurrence of the relationship, and precedence over the eternal is inconceivable. It was answered that His eternal Kalam Nafsi is not characterized by the past or otherwise, due to the absence of time. This was countered by the claim that the realization of this while holding that the eternal is a signified entity is very difficult, as is the statement that what is characterized by the past and otherwise is only the originated wording, not the eternal meaning. Some answered that the difficulty—if it were the indication of the verbal [speech] to it—is the indication of the subject to the subject-matter, and this is not the case for them; rather, it is the indication of the effect to the cause, and it does not follow from the consideration of something in the effect that it must be considered in the cause. It is not hidden that the view that the indication is that of the effect to the cause is contrary to the apparent meaning. Ibn al-Sadr said: The inclusion of the past, present, and future in verbal speech is only relative to the time of the addressee, not the time of the speaker. Just as when you send Zayd to Amr, you write in your letter to him: "I have sent Zayd to you," even though at the time you write it, the sending has not occurred. So you observe the state of the addressee. And just as you estimate an addressee in yourself and say: "You did not do such-and-such now, and before that it was such-and-such." There is no doubt that this past, present, and future is relative to the estimated time of existence for this addressee, not the time of the speaker of the Kalam Nafsi, because it is directed at an estimated addressee in whom only the times of the estimated addressees are observed. What the Arab grammarians considered regarding the narration of the past state and the consideration of past, present, and future in the circumstantial sentence relative to the time of the action, not the time of speaking, is very close to this.

It is also said: The intended fath is the victory of the Romans, by attributing the verbal noun to the agent, as they overcame the Persians at that time. Its being a fath for him (peace be upon him) is because he reported on the unseen, and what he reported was realized in that year, and because he took it as an omen for the victory of the believing People of the Book. In that, there is a manifestation of his (peace be upon him) affair that is equivalent to a conquest. It is said that in "fath" there is a metaphor for likening his (peace be upon him) manifestation to a conquest. It is also said that there is no metaphor in it, and the metaphor is in its connection to him (peace be upon him). It is also said there is no metaphor at all, and the meaning is: "We have opened for the Romans for your sake." You know that carrying the fath to what he mentioned is, in itself, very far-fetched.

It was argued against this that the victory of the Romans was not caused by Jihad and the like, so what they mentioned in directing the following causality is not correct. According to Qatadah, fath is from fatahah (with a damma), which is judgment—i.e., We have judged for you against the people of Makkah that you and your companions will enter it next year to circumambulate the House. This is also far-fetched. It is said the meaning is Allah's (Exalted be He) opening for him (peace be upon him) through Islam, prophethood, the call, argument, and the sword. Close to this is what al-Raghib reported: that it is His (Exalted and Majestic is He) opening for him (peace be upon him) through the sciences and guidance, which are a means to reward and praiseworthy stations. Its distance is as previously mentioned. Be that as it may, the omission of the object is for the sake of focusing on the act itself and to signal that the basis of the glad tiding is the fath itself issuing from Him (Exalted be He), not the specificity of what was opened. The fronting of "for you" over the absolute object—i.e., His saying: "a clear conquest"—even though the rule is to front it over other objects, as explicitly stated by al-Taftazani, is for the sake of the importance of this being for his (peace be upon him) benefit. It is also said: because it is the pivot of the benefit. "Clear" (mubin) is from abana in the sense of bana (intransitive), meaning a manifest conquest, clear in its matter, revealed in its state, or one that distinguishes between truth and falsehood.