Introduction It is Medinan, as narrated from Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and it has come in a narration from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. Abu al-Shaykh extracted from Said ibn Jubayr that he was asked about it by the master (al-Hibr), and he replied: "That is the Surah of Badr." In another narration, he said: "It was revealed regarding Badr." It is also said: It is Medinan, except for His saying, the Almighty and Exalted: "And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you" (8:30)—for this was revealed in Mecca, according to what Muqatil said. This has been countered by the fact that it is authentically reported from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that this very verse was revealed in Medina. Some have attempted to reconcile the two statements with an explanation that is not free from scrutiny. Others excluded His saying, the Exalted: "O Prophet, sufficient for you is Allah" (8:64), a view authenticated by Ibn al-Arabi and others. This is supported by what al-Bazzar extracted from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that it was revealed when Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—accepted Islam.

It contains seventy-seven verses in the Shami [count], seventy-six in the Basri and Hijazi, and seventy-five in the Kufi. The aspect of its relevance to Surah al-A'raf is that in [al-A'raf] it says: "And enjoin what is right" (7:199), and in this [surah] are many of the details of what is enjoined. In that [surah], the stories of the prophets—peace be upon them—with their nations are mentioned, while in this [surah], the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—is mentioned, along with what transpired between him and his people. The Exalted has detailed in that [surah] the stories of the family of Pharaoh and their counterparts and what befell them, while He summarized that in this [surah], saying: "Like the habit of the family of Pharaoh and those before them; they disbelieved in the verses of Allah, so Allah seized them for their sins" (8:52).

He pointed there to the evil speculation of the disbelievers regarding the Quran with His saying: "And when you do not bring them a sign, they say, 'Why have you not contrived it?'" (7:203), and He made that explicit here with His saying: "And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, 'We have heard; if we willed, we could say [something] like this; this is not but legends of the former peoples'" (8:31). He made clear in what preceded that the Quran is guidance and mercy for a people who believe, and He followed that with the command to listen to it and the command to remember Allah, the Blessed is His Name. Here, He clarified the state of the believers when it is recited and their state when Allah—Blessed is His Name—is mentioned, by His saying: "The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, their hearts become fearful, and when His verses are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and upon their Lord they rely" (8:2). [There are] other connections beyond these.

The apparent view is that its placement here is tawqifi (divinely ordained), as is the placement of Bara'ah (al-Tawbah) after it; in this regard, they are like all other surahs. Many have held this view, as mentioned in the introductions. Jalal al-Suyuti mentioned that the mention of this surah here is not tawqifi from the Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—to the Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—as is the preferred view regarding other surahs, but rather by the ijtihad (independent reasoning) of Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him. At first glance, it might appear that the most appropriate [arrangement] would be to place al-A'raf alongside Yunus and Hud due to their shared inclusion of the stories of the prophets—peace be upon them—and because they are Meccan in revelation, especially since a hadith exists regarding the virtue of the "Seven Long Ones" (al-Sab' al-Tiwal), and they counted Yunus as the seventh, as al-Bayhaqi extracted in al-Dala'il. Thus, separating it from al-A'raf by two surahs is a separation of a similar thing from its peer. This is in addition to the brevity of Surah al-Anfal relative to al-A'raf and Bara'ah.

The master of the nation (Ibn Abbas)—may Allah be pleased with them both—formerly questioned this and said to Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him: "What led you to take hold of al-Anfal, which is among the Mathani (surahs of less than 100 verses), and Bara'ah, which is among the Mi'in (surahs of 100+ verses), and pair them without writing the Basmalah between them, and place them among the Seven Long Ones?" Then he mentioned Uthman's response. We have already provided the report in full, the question and the answer.

I say: Uthman's objective regarding this is fulfilled by matters which Allah the Exalted opened [to understanding]. First: He placed al-Anfal before Bara'ah, despite its brevity, because it contains the Basmalah, so he placed it first so it would be like a part of it and its opener, and Bara'ah, due to its lack of the Basmalah, acts as its conclusion and remainder. Hence, a group of the predecessors said: "They are one surah." Second: He placed Bara'ah here for the suitability of length, for there is no surah longer than it after the six preceding ones, and that is sufficient as a connection. Third: He disrupted the Seven Long Ones with these two surahs—whose order was known in the early era—to indicate that this was a matter issued not by tawqifi arrangement, and that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was taken [in death] before he could clarify both of them. Thus, they were placed here as if in a borrowed position, contrary to what would be the case if they were placed after the Seven Long Ones, for that would suggest that was their place by tawqifi decree; this is not imagined in this arrangement due to the knowledge of the order of the seven. Consider this subtlety which Allah the Exalted has opened, for only a deep diver can reach it. Fourth: Had he delayed them and brought forward Yunus, then placed Hud after Bara'ah—as in the codex of Ubayy—to observe the suitability of the seven and the placing of some near others, he would have missed, in addition to what we pointed out, another more important matter of suitability. For it is more appropriate for Surah Yunus that the five surahs following it be brought, due to their shared connections in stories, the opening with Alif-Lam-Ra, the mention of the Book, their being Meccan, the proportionality in length (except for al-Hijr), and the naming after a prophet (Ar-Ra'd is the name of an angel, which is appropriate for the names of prophets—peace be upon them). These are several connections for the continuity between Yunus and what follows it, which is more important than this single aspect of placing Yunus after al-A'raf.

For some of these reasons, Surah al-Hijr was placed before al-Nahl, despite being shorter than it. If Bara'ah had been delayed after these six surahs, the connection would have been very distant due to its length after several surahs shorter than it, unlike the placement of Surah al-Nahl after al-Hijr, for it is not like Bara'ah in length.

The observance of opening letters (fawatiḥ) in the suitability of arrangement is testified to by what we mentioned regarding the precedence of al-Hijr over al-Nahl for the sake of the Alif-Lam-Ra preceding it, and the precedence of Ali 'Imran over al-Nisa', despite being shorter, for its suitability with al-Baqarah in the opening with Alif-Lam-Mim, and the succession of the Tawasin and the Hawamim, and the succession of al-'Ankabut, al-Rum, Luqman, and al-Sajdah because each opens with Alif-Lam-Mim. This is why al-Sajdah was placed before al-Ahzab, which is longer than it. This is what Allah the Exalted has opened for me.

Then [the author] mentioned that Ibn Mas'ud—may Allah be pleased with him—placed in his codex al-Baqarah, al-Nisa', Ali 'Imran, al-A'raf, al-An'am, al-Ma'idah, and Yunus, observing the Seven Long Ones; he placed the longest, then the next longest, then followed with the Mi'in, placing Bara'ah, then al-Nahl, then Hud, then Yusuf, then al-Kahf, and so on, the longest then the longest, and he placed al-Anfal after al-Nur. The aspect of the connection is that both are Medinan and contain rulings, and in al-Nur [there is]: "Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth..." (24:55), and in al-Anfal [there is]: "And remember when you were few and oppressed in the land..." (8:26). The connection between the two verses is not hidden, for the first contains the promise of what has already come to pass, and it is recalled in the second. Contemplate this.

I say: Allah the Exalted has bestowed upon this humble servant what He did not bestow upon this eminent one—and praise be to Allah the Exalted for that—in that He, the Almighty and Exalted, enabled me to see the aspect of the connection of this surah to what preceded it, while he did not clarify that. Then, what he mentioned regarding the lack of tawqifi status in this arrangement is extremely far-fetched, as is understood from what we presented in the introductions. The question of the "master" (Ibn Abbas) and the answer of Uthman—may Allah be pleased with them both—are not definitive on this matter. What he mentioned, may mercy be upon him, at the beginning of the matters that Allah opened to him, is not consistent with the apparent meaning of the question of the "master"—may Allah be pleased with him—as he indicated that the omission of the Basmalah from Bara'ah is also a matter of ijtihad, and from what he mentioned, the opposite is derived. His claim that Yunus is the seventh of the Seven Long Ones is not a matter of consensus; rather, it is the view of Mujahid and Ibn Jubayr, and a narration from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. In one narration from al-Hakim, it is al-Kahf. A group, as he said in al-Itqan, held that the Seven Long Ones begin with al-Baqarah and end with Bara'ah. Ibn al-Athir in al-Nihayah restricted himself to this. From some, it is that the seventh is al-Anfal and Bara'ah, based on the view that they are one surah, and al-Fayruzabadi mentioned this in his Qamus. What he mentioned regarding the second point is rendered unnecessary by what Uthman—may Allah be pleased with him—gave as a reason; for al-Nahhas extracted in his Nasikh from him that he said: "Al-Anfal and Bara'ah were called 'the two companions' (al-Qarinatayn) in the time of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—so that is why I placed them among the Seven Long Ones." What he mentioned regarding the observance of the openings for connection is not consistent, for al-Jinn, al-Kafirun, and al-Ikhlas open with "Say" (Qul), with a separation of several surahs between the first and second, and a separation of two surahs between the second and third. After all this, what he mentioned is not free from scrutiny, as is not hidden to the contemplator. Contemplate.

Al-Anfal: (1) They ask you concerning the spoils...

(In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. They ask you concerning the Anfal.) Anfal is the plural of nafl (with a fatha), which means "increase" or "addition." For this reason, voluntary worship is called nafilah, as is the grandchild (a descendant beyond the child). It then became a specific term for a gift. From this is the saying of Labid: "Indeed, the fear of our Lord is the best nafl (gift/addition), and by the permission of Allah, my slowness and haste." Because it is a voluntary act that is not obligatory, it is as if it were an addition.

Spoils (ghanimah) are also called by this name, as is what the Imam stipulates for the warrior in addition to his share based on his own judgment, whether for a specific person or not—like the one who kills an opponent and is entitled to his belongings (salab). They also include what the Imam adds for one who has performed a praiseworthy deed in battle, such as single combat, display of courage, and the like. Its application to ghanimah is due to it being a bounty from Allah, the Exalted, without obligation. The Imam—may Allah have mercy on him—said: "It is because the Muslims were favored with it over all other nations, for whom it was not made lawful." The reasoning behind a name does not necessitate it being all-encompassing. In the Tradition, it is mentioned that the spoils were forbidden to previous nations, and Allah bestowed them upon this nation. It is also said that they are called Anfal because they are an addition to the purpose for which Jihad was legislated, which is to exalt the word of Allah and protect the sanctuary of Islam. If the focus is on the fact that it was captured, it is called ghanimah. Some people differentiate between ghanimah and nafl through general and specific terms: Ghanimah is what is obtained through conflict, whether by an expedition or not, whether by right or not, and whether before or after the victory. Nafl is what is obtained before the victory, or what is obtained without fighting (which is fai'), or what remains after the distribution.

As for the question, as al-Tayyibi said—and it is narrated from al-Farisi—it is either to request knowledge or what leads to it, or to request a favor or what leads to it. The answer to the former is by tongue, or represented by hand (writing) or gesture, and it is transitive by itself or with ‘an (about) and ba’ (with). The answer to the latter is by hand, or represented by the tongue (promising or replying), and it is transitive by itself or with min (from). It may also be transitive to two objects, like a’ta (to give) and ikhtara (to choose). The second object may be an interrogative sentence, such as: "Ask the Children of Israel how many signs we have given them."

The intent of Anfal here is the spoils of war, as narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah, al-Dahhak, Ibn Zayd, and a group of the Sahabah and others. The question is one requesting knowledge, as chosen by a group of exegetes, because it is transitive with ‘an. The default is not to resort to allegorical interpretation. This is supported by what Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim recorded from the hadith of Ubadah ibn al-Samit (may Allah be pleased with him), which is the occasion of the revelation: The Muslims differed regarding the spoils of Badr and their distribution, so they asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) how they should be divided and who has the authority over them—is it for the Muhajirun, the Ansar, or all of them? Then this verse was revealed.

Others said: "The question is a request for a favor, and nafl refers to what was stipulated for the warrior in addition to his share." The cause of revelation is different from what was mentioned; Abd al-Razzaq in the Musannaf, Abd ibn Humayd, and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both) that he said: "On the day of Badr, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'Whoever kills an opponent, he gets such-and-such, and whoever captures a prisoner, he gets such-and-such.' Abu al-Yasar ibn ‘Amr al-Ansari brought two prisoners and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, you promised us.' Sa’d ibn Ubadah stood and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, if you give these people [what you promised], your companions will have nothing left. We did not hold back for greed for the reward nor out of cowardice before the enemy; we only took this position to protect you from those coming from behind you.' They argued, and the Quran was revealed."

They claimed the addition of the particle ‘an and used as evidence for this the recitation of Ibn Mas’ud, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Ali ibn al-Husayn, Zayd, Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja’far al-Sadiq, and Talhah ibn Musarrif: "They ask you the Anfal." This is rebutted by the fact that this recitation is a case of omission and connection (hadhf wa-isal); it is not a claim of an "additional" ‘an in the mutawatir (mass-transmitted) recitation. The omission of the particle in one recitation is more appropriate than claiming its implied presence in that recitation, given its established presence in the mutawatir recitation. Some have even claimed that the recitation omitting ‘an should be interpreted as if it were present, because the omission of a letter while intending the meaning is easier than adding it for emphasis, especially given that it is far-fetched to claim addition here.

The response is the words of Allah, the Exalted: "(Say, the Anfal belong to Allah and the Messenger)." This refers to the exclusivity of its affair and judgment to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) distributes them as Allah commands him, without the opinion of anyone else entering into it. The foundation of the argument that the question was a request for a favor would imply that this is the answer to it; however, if that were the case, this would not be a sufficient answer. The exclusivity of the judgment for what was stipulated for them to Allah and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) does not negate giving it to them, but rather confirms it, because they only ask him based on the stipulation of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) issued by the permission of Allah, not by their prior hand [in claiming it] or anything else that would disrupt the aforementioned exclusivity.

To interpret the answer as meaning that the Anfal in that sense belong exclusively to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and that the one to whom the nafl was promised has no right to it at all—this is absolutely impossible, as the entitlement via the tannfil (stipulation) is established. The claim that its establishment is via a later proof is a commitment to the repetition of abrogation without knowledge of the final abrogator. There is no room to adopt what Mujahid, Ikrimah, and al-Suddi went to—that the Anfal belonged to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) exclusively, and no one had any share in it by this verse, and it was abrogated by His saying: "(And know that whatever you take as spoils of war, then for Allah is one-fifth and for the Messenger)."

This is because the intent of Anfal in what they said is the first meaning, as the verse: "(And know that whatever you take as spoils...)" indicates. Furthermore, the truth is that there is no abrogation then, as Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam said; rather, it was explained here in general that the matter is delegated to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and later explained its channels and method of distribution. The claim that the exclusivity to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is limited to the Anfal stipulated on the day of Badr—making the ‘al (the) for familiarity while the entitlement of the one to whom it was stipulated remains in the rest of the Anfal—is rejected by the context of stating the rulings, as indicated by the explicit mention of Anfal where a pronoun could have been used. Moreover, that the answer to the question of the promised group would be that it belongs to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) exclusively is hardly fitting for his noble status.

It is narrated from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas that he said: "My brother ‘Umayr was killed on the day of Badr, and I killed Sa’id ibn al-‘As in retaliation, and I took his sword. It pleased me, so I brought it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: 'Allah has healed my heart from the polytheists, so grant me this sword.' The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'It is neither for me nor for you; cast it into the spoils.' I cast it, and I was in a state of distress that only Allah knows due to the killing of my brother and the taking of my spoils. I had not gone far when the Surah of al-Anfal was revealed. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to me: 'O Sa’d, you asked me for the sword, and it was not mine, but it has become mine. Go and take it.'"

As you can see, this necessitates that the tannfil did not take place at that time; otherwise, Sa’d’s request for the sword would have been in accordance with his stipulation and promise, not by way of a spontaneous gift. Carrying Sa’d’s action as mere adherence to etiquette, while his request was based on the stipulation, is refuted by the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rejection before the revelation, and his reasoning: "It is not mine"—for it is impossible for him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to promise what he cannot fulfill. His giving it after the revelation and linking it to his saying "it has become mine" is a necessity that the basis of it becoming his is the verse: "(The Anfal belong to Allah and the Messenger)." The premise is that this is what prevented the granting of the request.

What is explicit on this subject is His saying: "(So fear Allah)." If the question were a request for the stipulated prize, there would be no danger in it that requires fear of Allah. This is what the Shaykh al-Islam—may Allah have mercy on him—said. Its summary is the denial of the occurrence of tannfil at that time, and the incorrectness of interpreting the question as a request for a favor and Anfal in the second sense.

I say: The report of tannfil has come from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both) through the path we mentioned, and also through another path. Ibn Abi Shaybah, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hibban, Abu al-Shaykh, al-Bayhaqi in al-Dala’il, and al-Hakim (who authenticated it) recorded from him that he said: "On the day of Badr, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'Whoever kills an opponent gets such-and-such, and whoever captures a prisoner gets such-and-such.' The elders stood under the banners, while the youths rushed to the killing and spoils. The elders said to the youths: 'Include us with you, for we were your support; had you been in need, you would have sought refuge in us.' They disputed before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and then (They ask you concerning the Anfal) was revealed, so he divided the spoils among them equally."

It is also indicated by what Ahmad, Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn Marduyah, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan recorded from Abu Umamah, who said: "I asked Ubadah ibn al-Samit about the Anfal, and he said: 'It was revealed about us, the companions of Badr, when we differed regarding the nafl and our behavior worsened. Allah removed it from our hands and placed it with His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who divided it among the Muslims equally.'" Perhaps there are other reports on the subject. Therefore, the Shaykh, having denied the occurrence of tannfil, should have challenged them for weakness or the like to complete his objective.

As for the hadith of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas that he mentioned, it was recorded by Ahmad and Ibn Abi Shaybah. Even though it contains "Sa’id ibn al-‘Asi" (which is, as Abu Ubayd said, "al-‘Asi ibn Sa’id," and is textually confused), Abd ibn Humayd, al-Nahhas, Abu al-Shaykh, and Ibn Marduyah recorded from Sa’d that he said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) obtained great spoils, and there was a sword in it. I took it and brought it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: 'Grant me this sword as a nafl, for I am who you know.' He said: 'Return it to where you took it from.' I returned with it until, when I intended to cast it into the spoils, my soul blamed me, so I returned to him and said: 'Give it to me.' He raised his voice and said: 'Return it to where you took it from.' Then Allah revealed: (They ask you concerning the Anfal)."

This version is clear that the sword was not a salab (spoils of personal combat), as the first version suggests; rather, Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him) found it in the spoils and requested it as a nafl from his common share in them. Al-Nahhas recorded in his Nasikh from Sa’id ibn Jubayr that Sa’d and a man from the Ansar went out to seek nafl and found a sword lying there. Both claimed it, and Sa’d said: "It is mine," and the Ansari said: "It is mine; I will not release it until I go to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." They went to him and told him the story. He said: "It is not yours, Sa’d, nor yours, Ansari, but it is mine." Then (They ask you concerning the Anfal) was revealed.

The contradiction between this version and the previous two is very clear, so one can hardly rely on any of them without proving that it is the most authentic. You have not encountered that they affirmed the authenticity of the version the Shaykh mentioned, let alone the most authentic. Yes, Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi (who authenticated it), al-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduyah, al-Hakim (who authenticated it), and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan recorded from the aforementioned Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, Allah has healed me from the polytheists today, so grant me this sword.' He said: 'This sword is not for you nor for me, put it down.' I put it down, then returned and said: 'Perhaps it will be given to someone who has not fought as I have.' Then a man called me from behind. I said: 'Has something been revealed about me?' He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'You had asked me for this sword and it was not mine, but now it has been granted to me, so it is yours.' And Allah revealed this verse..."

Although this version is authenticated, it is not clear that the sword was his salab from ‘Umayr, as the text of the first version suggests. Even if we say that this version, while not perfectly coinciding with the first, does not contradict it—and an increase from a reliable source is accepted regardless of whether it is at the beginning, end, or middle—we must affirm abrogation, as it is one of the narrations from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both). It is clear that the Anfal became the property of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and no one has any right to it at all unless he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is generous with it, just as he is generous from his other wealth.

The aforementioned master adopted the view of no abrogation, not knowing that this report upon which he relied to deny the occurrence of tannfil actually conflicts with his view. The claim that his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying "it has become mine" meant that its judgment became his, but he expressed it in accordance with the verse, is rejected by the other version from al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim, which states "it has been granted to me." To treat this as the first is something no one knowledgeable of the speech of the Arabs—especially the speech of the most eloquent of those who speak the dad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—would do.

What the noble master mentioned—that the verse (Say, the Anfal...) is not an answer to a request for a favor—[is incorrect]. The exclusivity of the judgment to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) does not negate giving [the prize], but rather confirms it. It may be addressed by committing to the interpretation that he claimed was absolutely impossible. We say it is abrogated; it is an abrogation of the Sunnah before it was established by the Book. The abrogated thing is that specific tannfil. The tannfil that scholars speak of today is for the Imam to say: "Whoever kills an opponent, he gets his spoils," or to say to a squadron: "I grant you a quarter after the fifth," meaning after the fifth is set aside for the poor. It may be in other things, like money. It is mentioned in al-Siyar al-Kabir that if he said: "Whatever you obtain is yours," without adding "after the fifth," it is not permitted, because it nullifies the fifth established by the text. By the same token, it nullifies what he said: "Whoever obtains something, it is his," due to the similarity of the consequences. Indeed, it is more deserving of nullity. With this, the view that "if he grants the entire spoils, it is permitted if he sees it as a benefit" is also negated, for it contains the alienation of others and the inciting of sedition. The Shafi’i masters mentioned that the most correct view is that the nafl comes from the fifth of the fifth intended for public interests, if he grants it from what will be taken as spoils in this battle, as it is what is reported from them, as came from Ibn al-Musayyib.

It is possible that the abrogated tannfil which took place on the day of Badr, according to those who hold this view, was not like this one we mentioned from our Imams, nor like that of the Shafi’is established by the evidence in the books of both groups. The reports we have encountered on that tannfil are not clearly identical to this tannfil. In that case, what was abrogated did not become established, and something else was established. Perhaps it is said: Assuming what was established is what was abrogated, the evidence for its establishment is His saying: "(O Prophet, urge the believers to battle)." This contains a level of urging that is not hidden. The claim that the "al" in Anfal is for familiarity is rejected in this context. What supports the familiarity is that the Surah of al-Anfal is called the Surah of Badr, so it does not prevent the intent of Anfal being the Anfal of Badr. The claim that the explicit mention where a pronoun could be used is very hidden is weak. The idea that the answer regarding the promised group being that it belongs to him exclusively is not fitting for his noble status is something that is not accepted—how can it be so when the judgment is divine, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is commanded to convey it? It can be said: The gist of the answer is "O people, what I promised you by the permission of Allah, He (Glory be to Him) has made me own it, not you, and He knows best the wisdom in what He did, first and last. So fear Allah regarding evil thoughts or lack of satisfaction with that." From here, one knows the beauty of the command for piety after that answer, and the invalidity of what the master claimed as an explicit text on the subject.

It can also be said: There is no obstacle to interpreting the question as one of seeking information, and the exclusivity as the exclusivity of the ruling, with the intent of Anfal being the second meaning. The meaning is: "They ask you about the condition of what you promised them, do they deserve it, even if others are deprived?" Since you promised them and spoke broadly, say: "That promised share has had its entitlement abrogated by the promise permitted previously, and its matter has been delegated to me. I have not been restricted from giving it to you instead of others, rather I was permitted to make your companions equal to you, lest any of the people of Badr return empty-handed and feel alienated, and relationships be spoiled." So fear Allah regarding the selfishness with what you took, or hiding any of it, based on the fact that you were promised it. "(And make peace between yourselves)" through returning and consoling with what is in your hands, "and obey Allah and His Messenger" in all that he commands and forbids, for in that are benefits you do not know, and only Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) know them. The structuring of the question and answer in this manner, even if not apparent, is not very far-fetched.

Then, what the noble master mentioned regarding the hadith of abrogation in the speech of Mujahid, Ikrimah, and al-Suddi only applying to Anfal in the first sense because the abrogating verse indicates that—this is accepted. However, at the end of al-Nahhas’s narration from Ibn Jubayr regarding the story of Sa’d and his companion, it suggests the abrogation of the verse while interpreting Anfal differently, which is not so.

Finally, I return and say: This artificial complexity we have undergone is only to protect the reports that state the cause of revelation is what the proponent of the second meaning relied upon, before realizing their weakness. The mere mention of what the master said does not indicate that. Do you not see how they turn away from the apparent meanings of verses if an authentic hadith requires it? Otherwise, I do not deny that interpreting Anfal in the first sense and holding that the verse is not abrogated and the question is for information is less burdensome than other interpretations. Reflect on that, and Allah, the Exalted, will take charge of your guidance.

The intent of His saying: "(So fear Allah)..." is that if the matter of the spoils belongs to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then fear Him, the Exalted, and avoid the arguing and differing regarding them, which leads to division and His anger, or fear Him in all that you do and leave, so that what they are in is included primarily. "And make peace between yourselves" by leaving off embezzlement and the like. It is reported from al-Suddi that it means [avoiding] mutual reviling.

From ‘Ata: The reconciliation between them was that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called them and said: "Divide your spoils justly." They said: "We have already eaten and spent them." He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Let some of you return to others." Dhat (possessor of) is, as they say, a possessive meaning, an attribute for a deleted object. Bayn (relationship/separation) is either in the meaning of separation, union, or a container—i.e., states of your separation, union, or the perfection connected to you. Al-Zajjal and others said: Dhat here is like the essence of the thing and its self, as Ibn ‘Atiyyah explained, and upon this is the usage of the theologians. Since conditions are associated with the bayn, it was added to it, like saying: "Give me dha (the contents of) your vessel," meaning what is inside it.

The Divine Name is mentioned in both matters to cultivate awe and explain the ruling. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is mentioned with Allah, the Exalted, first and last to magnify his status, show his honor, and signal that his obedience is the obedience of Allah. Many have said: The coupling of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) first is because Allah is exclusive in the command, and the Messenger is the one who executes it. The mediation of the command to "make peace between yourselves" between the command of piety and the command of obedience is to show the perfection of concern for reconciliation according to the context, and so that the command for it is included under the command of obedience.

Ibn Muhaysin read "(They ask you about the Anfal)" with the omission of the hamza and casting its vowel onto the lam, assimilating the nun of ‘an into it; the transient vowel is not counted. "(If you are believers)" is related to the three commands, and the answer is omitted, relying on the evidence of what is mentioned. Or it is the answer, according to the famous disagreement. In any case, the intent is to show that the aforementioned [commands] are conditional upon it, not to cast doubt on their faith, which is sufficient for conditional linking. Faith here is intended as affirmation; it is not hidden that it necessitates the aforementioned, in the sense that it is its nature, not that it is a necessity for it in reality. Faith may also mean complete faith, and deeds are a condition for it or a part of it. The meaning is: "If you are complete in faith," for the perfection of faith revolves around these three traits: piety, reconciliation, and obedience to Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This is supported by His saying: "..."