Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:34

"And why should they not be punished by Allah" — meaning: what reason do they have for the punishment to be averted from them? That is, they have no claim to such a thing; they are inevitably to be punished once the obstacle is removed. How could they not be punished, "while they hinder [people] from the Sacred Mosque" — meaning: their state is one of actual hindrance, as they did during the year of Hudaybiyyah, and legal hindrance, as they did with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions, to the point that they compelled them to migrate.

Since the two verses (this one and the preceding verse 33) appear to contain a contradiction, some have added to the interpretation [of the previous verse] that the protection from punishment remains "as long as the obstacle [the presence of the Prophet or their seeking forgiveness] exists." You know, however, that if "punishment" in both verses is taken to mean "punishment by total annihilation," one would be compelled to say that it occurred after the removal of the obstacle, which is contrary to reality.

Some have attempted to resolve this by saying: the punishment mentioned previously refers to annihilation, while here it refers to punishment by killing some of them. Al-Shihab reported from Al-Hasan—though the responsibility rests with him—that this verse abrogates the one before it. Apparently, he intended the two previous negations. What is in Al-Durr al-Manthur is that he, as well as Ikrimah and Al-Suddi, said: "The saying of the Almighty, 'But Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness,' is abrogated by this verse." Be that as it may, the objection to this is that there is no abrogation in reports (historical narratives) unless they contain a legal ruling, and there is obscurity regarding the inclusion of such a ruling in the abrogated verse here.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq said: The first verse is connected to what preceded it as a narration of the polytheists, for they used to say: "Allah will not punish us while we seek forgiveness, and the Almighty does not punish a nation while its Prophet is among them." So Allah the Almighty related that to His Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) alongside their other claims. It is as if it were said: "And when they said, 'O Allah...' and also said such-and-such," then He refuted them by His saying: "And why should they not be punished by Allah," meaning: they shall be punished even if you are among them, and even if they seek forgiveness. The weakness in this is that it is highly unlikely they would make such a claim, and the logical response would have been, "May He punish us," or "He will punish us while we seek forgiveness," to be in the style of their previous claims. Furthermore, numerous reports reject this. Abu al-Shaykh and Al-Hakim (who authenticated it) and Al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman recorded from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "There were two sources of security for you; one has passed, and the other remains," and he recited: "But Allah would not punish them..." [until the end]. A similar account came from Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa al-Ash'ari. Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi in Al-Shama'il, and Al-Nasa'i recorded from Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said: "The sun eclipsed during the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), so he stood and prayed... [describing the long prayer]... then he said: 'O Lord, did You not promise me that You would not punish them while I am among them? O Lord, did You not promise me that You would not punish them while they seek forgiveness, and we seek Your forgiveness?' Then the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) finished his prayer, and the sun had cleared."

Al-Jubba'i held that the negation mentioned previously refers to worldly punishment, while this punishment refers to the Hereafter—meaning: He will inevitably punish them in the Hereafter. This is contrary to the context of the verse.

"And..." — according to the majority, which is the apparent meaning, this is an interrogative. Others said it is a negation, meaning: The punishment is not negated for them while they are engaged in hindering from the Sacred Mosque.

"And they were not its guardians" — meaning: they were not worthy of guardianship over the Sacred Mosque due to their polytheism. The clause is in the position of a state (hal) describing the pronoun in "they hinder," clarifying the extreme ugliness of their act of hindering; for them to personally hinder from it while lacking the right to manage its affairs is the height of ugliness. This refutes their claim: "We are the guardians of the House and the Haram, so we hinder whom we wish and admit whom we wish."

"Its guardians are none but the righteous" — from polytheism, those who do not worship other than Him in it. The intent here is the Muslims, and this is the first rank of righteousness (taqwa).

The interpretation we pointed to—that both pronouns refer to the "Mosque"—is the one that first comes to mind, as narrated from Abu Ja'far and Al-Hasan. It is said: Both refer to the Almighty (Allah), and upon this view, there is no need to consider the "worthiness" mentioned earlier, since they possessed no guardianship of Allah whatsoever, unlike the guardianship of the Mosque, which they were exercising at the time of revelation, thus requiring the interpretation of "negating the worthiness." In this case, "the righteous" are interpreted as being more specific than "Muslims," because Islam alone does not suffice for the guardianship of Allah; rather, the second rank of righteousness is also required. If the third rank is found, then it is the supreme guardianship.

This is what we know from the texts of the purified Sharia and the bright path whose night is like its day. Most of the ignorant today believe that the Wali (saint) is the madman, and they refer to him as al-majdhub (the attracted). They speak the truth, but they are attracted away from guidance. The more intense his madness becomes, the more his speech rambles, and the more refined souls find his condition repulsive, the more "complete" his guardianship becomes and the more "perfect" his influence in the kingdom of Allah! Some apply this term to him and to one who abandons the religious laws, deviates from the Muhammadan religion, speaks the words of the [deviant] folk, and assumes their appearance—while having no part in the matter. He claims that whoever exerts himself in worship is "veiled," and whoever adheres to the Sharia is "at a loss," and that there is an "inner truth" that contradicts the "outer law." Once he realizes this, the chains fall away, the obligation is lifted, and the soul reaches perfection—having cast down its staff and found its abode, as the traveler is comforted by his return. They call this person a "guide"—they speak truly, but to the Fire; a "sheikh"—they speak truly, but of the Najdi; an "gnostic"—they speak truly, but in the wilderness of misguidance; and a "monotheist"—they speak truly, but of disbelief and faith!

Our master, the Proof of Islam Al-Ghazali, mentioned this type of infidel profligate and said: "Killing one of them is better in the sight of Allah than killing a hundred disbelievers." The Great Sheikh (may his secret be sanctified) spoke similarly about them in the Futuhat: To the water he strives, he who chokes on a morsel; Whither shall he strive, he who chokes on water?

Al-Zamakhshari held that "the righteous" are more specific than "Muslims" according to the first perspective as well, which is more emphatic in negating guardianship from the aforementioned ones—meaning: one who is not a Muslim is not fit to govern the affairs of the Mosque; only he who is pious and righteous deserves its guardianship, let alone the polytheists, the worshippers of idols.

"But most of them do not know" — that they have no guardianship over it. It is as if the Almighty, by mentioning the "most," alerted us that among them are some who know this but deny it out of obstinacy. Sometimes, "most" may imply "all," as the majority has the force of law in many rulings, just as the minority may not be considered and is treated as nonexistent.