Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:33

After the Almighty explained the gravity of killing, He proceeded to clarify the ruling on a specific type of killing and the corruption related to it, such as plundering wealth and its likes, and determined the punishment for it. In doing so, He included the clarification of what was indicated summarily regarding the corruption that permits killing, saying—Glory be to Him—: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger..."

The majority of exegetes, as stated by al-Tabarsi, and the body of jurists maintain that this was revealed regarding highway robbers. As al-Jassas stated, the speech involves the omission of an annexed noun (mudaf); meaning, they wage war against the allies (awliya) of Allah the Exalted and His Messenger—peace be upon him. It is like the Almighty’s saying: "Indeed, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger..." This is evidenced by the fact that had they waged war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) directly, they would be apostates by the very act of manifesting war and opposition to him—peace be upon him. It is also said: The intended meaning is that they wage war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and Allah the Exalted mentioned Himself for the purpose of precedence and to alert to the loftiness of the Messenger’s station—peace be upon him—in His sight. Wageing war against the people of his law (sharia) and the followers of his way among the Muslims is a war against him (peace be upon him). Thus, the ruling extends to those who wage war against them after the Messenger—peace be upon him—even many eras later, by way of explicit expression (al-ibara), not by way of implication (dalala) or analogy (qiyas) as some might imagine; for the arrival of the text is not through the mode of direct oral address such that it would be restricted to those addressed at the time of revelation, requiring another proof for its generalization according to what has been established in the principles of jurisprudence (usul).

It is also said: There is no omitted noun, but the intent is simply waging war against the Muslims, except that their war is termed a war against Allah the Exalted and His Messenger (peace be upon him) to magnify Him and elevate their status. The mention of the Messenger here serves as a preamble.

"War" (harb) in its origin means plundering and taking. It is said: "Harabahu" if he plundered him. The intent here is highway robbery. It is also said that it means attacking openly with banditry, even if it is within a city.

"And strive" (yas’awna) is a conjunction to "wage war" (yuharibuna), and the Almighty’s saying "in the land" (fi al-ard) relates to it. It is also said it relates to the Almighty’s saying "corruption" (fasadan), which is either a state (hal) from the doer of "strive" interpreted as "corruptors" or "possessors of corruption," or it is interpreted without need for reinterpretation to denote intensification, as it is said. Or, it is an object for the sake of which (maf'ul lahu), meaning "for the sake of corruption." Or, it is an absolute object (masdar) emphasizing "strive" because it carries the same meaning as "they corrupt" (yufsiduna). "Corruption" (fasadan) is either an infinitive (masdar) from which the augmentations have been removed or a noun signifying the act.

The Almighty’s saying "The recompense..." is a subject (mubtada) whose predicate is formed by the construction from the Almighty’s saying: "is that they be killed," i.e., as a prescribed punishment (hadd) without crucifixion if they only committed the killing. There is no difference whether it is done with a sharp tool or otherwise. The use of the intensive form (taf'il) is due to its exceeding the standard retaliation (qisas), in that it is a right of the Divine Law (shar') and does not lapse through the forgiveness of the heir of the victim. The same applies to crucifixion in His saying: "or they be crucified," due to the killing involved; meaning they are crucified alongside the killing if they combined both killing and robbery. It is also said the intensive form in both verbs is for frequency (takthir).

Crucifixion occurs before killing, where they are crucified while alive and their bellies are pierced with a spear until they die. The most correct view of al-Shafi'i—may mercy be upon him—is that the crucifixion lasts for three days after the killing. It is said: it is one day. It is said: until his discharge (sadid) flows. It is better that it be on the road in the path of the people, so that it may be a deterrent to others from venturing into such disobedience.

According to the manifest account (zahir al-riwaya), the Imam is given a choice: if he wishes, he suffices with that [the killing and crucifixion], or he cuts off their hands and feet from opposite sides, then kills and crucifies them. "Or their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides" means cut off in a varied manner, such that their right hands and left feet are severed if they limited themselves to taking wealth from a Muslim or a dhimmi (as he has wealth like ours, protected), provided the amount is such that if divided among them, each would receive ten dirhams or the value thereof. This applies to the first time; if they repeat it, the remainder is cut off. The cutting of hands is for taking wealth, and the cutting of feet is for terrorizing the road and destroying its security.

"Or they be exiled from the land" if they did not do anything other than terrorizing and striving for corruption. The intent of "exile" (nafyi) in our school is imprisonment and incarceration; the Arabs use "exile" for this meaning because the person thereby is parted from his house and family. Some prisoners have said: "We have departed from the world while we are its people, so we are neither among the dead within it nor among the living, for when the jailer came to us one day for a need, we were amazed and said: 'Has this one come from the world?'" They are also disciplined (ta'zir) for their action of terrorizing the road and removing its security. According to al-Shafi'i—may mercy be upon him—it means exile from one land to another, and he continues to be pursued while fleeing in fear until he repents and returns. Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, al-Suddi, Ibn Jubayr, and others hold this view, and the Imamiyyah also follow it. From Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz and Ibn Jubayr, in another report, it is said that he is exiled only from his own town. It is said: to a more distant land. They used to exile them to Dahlak, a town in the furthest part of Tihama, or Nasi', a town in the lands of Abyssinia. The argument for the first view is that the intent of the exile of the highway robber is to deter him and repel his evil; if he is exiled to another land, this is not guaranteed. Removing him from the world is impossible, and [removing him] from the House of Islam is not permissible. If he is imprisoned in another land, there is no benefit, as imprisonment in his own land achieves the purpose and is harsher upon him.

Since war and corruption have varying ranks and manifold forms, a specific punishment was legislated for each rank by way of distribution (taqsim) and the ordered grouping (laff wa nashr), as we have indicated. The "or" (aw) is for division. It is said that it is for choice (takhayyur), meaning the Imam has a choice among these punishments for every highway robber. The first view is known through revelation; otherwise, the wording does not indicate it to the exclusion of choice. Furthermore, the verse contains varying punishments in severity and lightness, so it must correspond to different crimes so that the recompense for every evil is an equivalent evil. Moreover, choice in the most severe and the lightest for a single crime carries no significant meaning. The apparent [meaning] is that this classification and prioritization was revealed to him (peace be upon him), and what al-Khara'iti extracted in Makarim al-Akhlaq from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—bears witness to this.

Some claim that choice is closer, and its being between the most severe and the lightest is in view of the persons and the times, for punishments are for deterrence and reforming the creation, and people may differ in their deterrence, so that was entrusted to the opinion of the Imam. There is a detailed discourse in this; reflect upon it.

"That" (dhalika) refers to what has been detailed of the rulings and punishments. It is a subject (mubtada), and the Almighty’s saying "for them is disgrace" (lahum khizyun) is a sentence consisting of a fronted predicate and a subject, in the place of a nominative predicate for the [first] subject. The Almighty’s saying "in the world" (fi al-dunya) relates to an omitted entity that serves as an adjective for "disgrace," or it relates to it in the sense of adverbial time/place. It is said that "disgrace" is the predicate for "that," and "for them" (lahum) relates to an omitted entity acting as a state (hal) for "disgrace," because originally it is an adjective for it; when it was fronted, it became accusative as a state. "In the world" is either an adjective for "disgrace" or relates to it, as previously mentioned. Disgrace (khizy) is ignominy and scandal. "And for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment."

The greatness of which cannot be estimated, and that is due to the extreme gravity of their crimes. He limited the mention in the world to "disgrace," even though they also have punishment in it, and in the Hereafter to "punishment," even though they also have disgrace in it, because disgrace in the world is greater than its punishment, and the punishment in the Hereafter is more severe than its disgrace. This verse is the strongest proof for those who say that [prescribed] punishments (hudud) do not preclude punishment in the Hereafter. Those who argue for the negation [of punishment in the Hereafter] cite his (peace be upon him) saying in the authentic hadith: "Whoever commits something and is punished for it, it serves as an expiation for him," for it necessitates the removal of the sin from him and that he not be punished in the Hereafter. This is problematic in light of this verse. Al-Nawawi answered that the punishment (hadd) expiates the right of Allah the Exalted, whereas the rights of the servants are not included here; there are two rights here: the right of Allah and the right of the servants. [The author] looked into that.