Tafsir of Al-Hujurat 49:9

(And if two parties among the believers fight each other) — that is, they enter into combat with one another. The apparent form would be iqtatalata (the dual feminine pronoun), as in the saying of the Exalted: "Make settlement between them" (referring to the two). However, the shift to the plural pronoun (iqtatalu) is to observe the meaning, for each of the two parties is a group; thus, their meaning was observed first and their wording second, contrary to the common usage. The subtlety behind this, it is said, is that during the state of fighting, they are intermingled, hence the plural pronoun was used; and during the state of reconciliation, they are distinct and separated, hence the dual pronoun was used. Ibn Abi Abla read it as iqtatalata, using the dual feminine pronoun as is apparent. Zayd ibn Ali and Ubayd ibn Umayr read it as iqtatala, using the dual masculine pronoun, considering the two parties as two factions.

(Then if one of them transgresses) — that is, commits aggression and seeks superiority without right (against the other) and is not affected by advice, (then fight the one that transgresses until it returns) — that is, until it comes back to the command of Allah, meaning His judgment or that which He, the Exalted, has ordained. Al-Zuhri read it as tafi’a without the hamza and with an open ya, but this is anomalous, just as they say in the imperfect tense of ja’a (to come) as yaji without a hamza. When they insert a nasb-inducing particle, they open the ya, treating it as yafi (anomalously). Linking the fighting to the relative pronoun (the one that transgresses) is to indicate the causality of what is contained in the relative clause; meaning: fight them because of their transgression. (Then if it returns) — that is, returns to the command of the Exalted and desists from fighting, fearing your combat, (then make settlement between them in justice) — by deciding between them according to the judgment of Allah the Exalted. Do not suffice with merely leaving them, for there might be fighting between them at another time. The stipulation of "settlement" here with "justice" is because it is a place where bias might occur, as it takes place after the fighting. This is emphasized by His saying: (And act justly) — that is, be equitable in everything you undertake or abandon, (Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly).

(He rewards them with the best of rewards). In al-Kashshaf, there are details regarding the "settlement with justice and equity": If the transgressing party is small in number such that it has no defensive strength, it is liable for what it destroyed after its return. If it possesses strength and might, it is not held liable, except according to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, for he used to issue legal opinions that liability is binding upon it once it returns. As for the gathering of troops, or when they disperse upon the war laying down its burdens, then what it destroyed is guaranteed according to all. Thus, the interpretation of "settlement with justice" according to the school of Muhammad is clear and applies to the wording of the Revelation. Regarding the view of others, the interpretation is that it refers to the faction being small in number. What they mentioned—that the obligation is to bury grudges and remove resentments rather than guaranteeing the crimes—does not fit well with what is commanded in terms of acting with justice and observing equity. It is stated in al-Kashf that what they mentioned about burying grudges is included in the saying of the Exalted: (Then if it returns), for it is a necessity of repentance; therefore, acting with justice and equity is only in the rectifying of past lapses. Then he said: The better view, according to the majority, is to say that the "settlement with justice" means that nothing is guaranteed from either side, for the transgressor’s blood and wealth are protected, just like the just party, especially since he has repented. Just as the just party does not guarantee what he destroyed, the returning transgressor does not guarantee it. This is the requirement of justice, not designating liability to one side over another.

The verse was revealed concerning a fight that occurred between the Aws and the Khazraj. Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Marduyah, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan recorded from Anas that he said: It was said to the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, "If you would only go to Abdullah ibn Ubayy." He went to him, riding a donkey, and the Muslims walked with him; it was salt-marsh land. When he reached him, he said, "Get away from me, for by Allah, the odor of your donkey has offended me." A man from the Ansar said, "By Allah, the donkey of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is more pleasant in odor than you." Men from his people became angry for Abdullah, and their companions became angry for each of them. There was beating with palm branches, hands, and sandals between them. So Allah the Exalted revealed concerning them: (And if two parties...) the verse. In another narration, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was heading to visit Sa'd ibn Ubada in his illness when he passed by Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul, who said what he said. Abdullah ibn Rawaha, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him, replied to him, so their companions became angry for both of them, and they fought. This was revealed, and the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, recited it to them, so they reconciled. Ibn Rawaha was a Khazrajite, and Ibn Ubayy was an Awsite.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from al-Suddi who said: There was a man from the Ansar named Imran who had a wife called Umm Zayd. She wanted to visit her family, but her husband detained her and kept her in an upper room so that none of her family could enter upon her. The woman sent word to her family, and her people came and brought her down to take her with them. The man had left, so his family sought help, and his cousins came to intervene between the woman and her family. They pushed each other and struck one another with sandals, so this verse was revealed concerning them: (And if two parties among the believers fight each other). The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, sent to them, reconciled between them, and they returned to the command of Allah the Exalted.

The address in it, according to al-Bahr, is for the one who holds authority, and this is narrated from Ibn Abbas. It is a command for obligation; thus, reconciliation is obligatory, and fighting the transgressing party is obligatory as long as it continues to fight. When it stops and refrains from war, it is left alone. It came in a hadith recorded by al-Hakim and others regarding its ruling if it retreats: He, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "O son of Umm 'Abd, do you know how Allah has ruled regarding those who transgress from this Ummah?" He said: "Allah and His Messenger know best." He said: "Their wounded are not to be finished off, their prisoners are not to be killed, their fugitives are not to be pursued, and their spoils are not to be divided."

They mentioned that if two parties of Muslims fight on the basis of transgression by both of them, the obligation is to walk between them to reconcile their differences and produce a cessation of fighting and a truce. If they do not refrain and do not reconcile and persist in transgression, they are to be fought. If they are locked in battle due to a doubt that has entered upon them, and both of them believe themselves to be righteous, the obligation is to remove the doubt with clear proofs and definitive evidence and to inform them of the right path. If they persist in contention and do not act according to the model to which they were guided and advised—following the truth after it was made clear—then they have joined those who fought on the basis of transgression by both of them. Addressing the removal of doubt in the transgressing party, if it is necessary, is before the fighting.

It is said: The address is for anyone who is able to reconcile and fight the transgressor. Whenever transgression is realized from a party, the ruling of assisting the one transgressed against is the ruling of Jihad. Al-Hakim recorded—and authenticated it—along with al-Bayhaqi, from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both, that he said: "I have not found anything in my soul like that which I found regarding this verse"—meaning (And if two parties...)—"that I did not fight this transgressing party as Allah the Exalted ordered me," meaning Mu'awiya and those with him who transgressed against Ali, may Allah honor his face. The Hanbalis stated explicitly that fighting the transgressors is superior to Jihad, arguing that Ali, may Allah honor his face, occupied himself during the time of his Caliphate with fighting them instead of Jihad. The truth is that this is not absolute; rather, it is when there is fear of a great corruption resulting from abandoning their fight, the repelling of which is greater than the benefit of Jihad.

The apparent meaning of the verse is that the transgressor is a believer, as it makes both parties—the transgressors and the ones transgressed against—from among the believers. Yes, the one who transgresses against the Imam, even if he is a tyrant, is a fasiq (sinner) who has committed a major sin if his transgression was without an interpretation or with an interpretation that is definitively void. The Mu'tazila say concerning such a one: He is a fasiq who will remain eternally in the Fire if he dies without repentance. The Khawarij say: He is a disbeliever. The Imamiyya have declared the one who transgressed against Ali, may Allah honor his face, and fought him, to be a disbeliever, arguing with what was narrated from his saying, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to him: "Your war is my war," which contains a discussion. Ibn Mas'ud read: (until they return to the command of Allah; then if they return, make settlement between them with equity).