Al-Anfal: 38

"Say to those who have disbelieved"—that is, those who are known, namely Abu Sufyan and his companions. The lam (in lil-ladhina) is for causality; meaning, "Say [this] for their sake: "if they cease"—from what they are in of opposing the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) by entering into Islam—"that which has passed will be forgiven them"—of the sins they committed, among which is the enmity and the spending [of wealth] in misguidance.

Abu Hayyan said: The apparent meaning is that the lam is for the purpose of conveyance (tabligh), and that he (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was commanded to convey this meaning encompassed by the words of this sentence, regardless of whether he said it with this exact phrasing or another. This disagreement only exists according to the recitation of the group (the majority). As for the recitation of Ibn Mas’ud, "If you cease (in the second person), you will be forgiven," there is no disagreement that it is for conveyance, in the sense of addressing them directly. It has also been recited as "He will forgive them" (yaghfir), with the pronoun referring to Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He).

"And if they return"—to fighting him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), or to enmity in the sense of persisting in it—"then the precedent of the first has already passed." That is, the custom of Allah (Exalted is He) that is ongoing concerning those who formed factions against the prophets (peace and blessings be upon them)—of granting victory to the believers over them, and abandoning and destroying them. The sunnah (precedent) is attributed to them due to the evident connection between them. Similar to this is His (Sublime is He) saying: "The precedent of those whom We sent before you." He attributed the precedent to the messengers even though it is His precedent (Exalted is He), as per His saying: "And you will not find any change in Our precedent," because it is carried out at their hands.

The "first ones" includes those whose schemes backfired upon them on the day of Badr; some interpreted it as such. Perhaps the former is more appropriate due to its generality, and because a sunnah (custom) implies repetition by definition, even if some say that a custom is established by a single occurrence. The sentence, according to what is in al-Bahr, is a proof for the answer [of the conditional], and the estimation is: "If they return, We will take retribution upon them," or "We will grant the believers victory over them; for the precedent of the first has passed."

Not a few have held that what is meant by "those who disbelieved" are the disbelievers in a general sense, and that the verse is an incitement to faith and an encouragement toward it. The meaning is: if the disbelievers cease their disbelief and accept Islam, their past disbelief and sins will be forgiven them, and they will be cleared of them as a hair is pulled from dough. But if they return to disbelief by apostatizing, then the subjugation and overpowering by the believers will return upon them.

The verse is used as evidence that Islam wipes out what came before it, and that when a disbeliever accepts Islam, he is not held accountable to make up for missed prayers, Zakat, fasting, or the destruction of wealth or life. The Malikis applied all of this to the apostate who repents, due to the generality of the verse. They also used it as evidence for dropping the jizya obligation from a dhimmi that was due before his conversion. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from the path of Ibn Wahb from Malik that he said: "A disbeliever is not taken to task for anything he did in his state of disbelief when he becomes a Muslim, because Allah (Exalted is He) said: 'If they cease...' etc."

Some have said: If a harbi (a disbeliever from a non-treaty land) accepts Islam, no liability remains upon him at all. As for the dhimmi, he is not required to make up for the rights of Allah (Exalted is He), but he is required to make up for the rights of the servants. It has been attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) that his school regarding the apostate is like that of the Malikis: that if he returns to Islam, no liability remains upon him. This is almost explicit in that whoever disobeyed for a lifetime, then apostatized, then accepted Islam, has no sin remaining.

Some have explicitly attributed this saying to him (may Allah be pleased with him) and claimed he used this verse as evidence. This is extremely weak, as the disbelief referred to in the verse is original disbelief, and "what has passed" refers to what passed during the state of disbelief. This was countered by the fact that Abu Hanifah and Malik kept the verse on its generality based on the hadith: "Islam demolishes what came before it." They stipulated that the apostate remains liable for the rights of humans, but not the rights of Allah (Exalted is He), as mentioned in Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn ‘Abd al-Haqq. Al-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him) disagreed with them and said: He remains liable for all rights.

I say: What that person mentioned about Abu Hanifah regarding the aforementioned sinner is extremely strange, and there is that which contradicts it in the book al-Ashab. In al-Khaniyah, if an apostate owed missed prayers or fasts that he abandoned while in Islam, then accepted Islam [again], Shams al-A’immah al-Halwani said: He must make up for the prayers and fasts abandoned, as the disobedience remains after the apostasy. Yes, Qadi Khan mentioned in it that which indicates some things drop from this apostate if he returns to Islam. He spoke at length about the apostate, and there is no harm in conveying some of what is related to this topic, as it is not devoid of benefit. He said: If a Muslim acquired wealth, or committed something for which qisas (retribution) or the had punishment for qadhf (false accusation of adultery) is required, then apostatized, or acquired that while he was an apostate in the Abode of Islam, then fled to the Abode of War and fought the Muslims for a time, then came [back] as a Muslim, he is held accountable for all of that. But if he acquired that after he reached the Abode of War while an apostate, and then became a Muslim, all of that is waived from him. As for what a Muslim acquires of the hadd punishments of Allah (Exalted is He), such as adultery, theft, or banditry, and then apostatizes—or if he acquired those after apostasy, then fled to the Abode of War, and then came as a Muslim—all of that is waived from him, except that he must make restitution for the wealth in the case of theft. If he shed blood on the road, qisas is upon him. For what he acquired in banditry by killing, if it was by mistake, the blood money is upon his ‘aqilah (male relatives) if he acquired it before apostasy; and upon his own wealth if he acquired it after.

If a hadd punishment for drinking [alcohol] became incumbent upon a Muslim, and he then apostatized, then became a Muslim before reaching the Abode of War, he is not taken to task for that, because disbelief prevents the obligation of the hadd initially, so when it intervenes, it prevents its persistence. If the apostate acquired that while imprisoned, he is not taken to task for the hadd of wine and intoxication, but he is taken to task for anything other than that from the hadd punishments of Allah. The Imam is enabled to carry out this hadd if it is in his hand; but if it was not in his hand when he acquired it, and then he became a Muslim before reaching the Abode of War, it is also waived from him.

From this, it is known that their saying "the apostate is liable for the rights of the servants but not the rights of Allah" is not absolute. The complete discussion is in the books of jurisprudence (furu'). You know that the interpretation of the verse is that which corresponds to the requirements of the context, and the immediate understanding of "disbelief" is original disbelief. And "Islam demolishes what came before it" is part of a hadith recorded by Muslim from ‘Amr ibn al-‘As: "I came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, 'Extend your right hand so I may pledge allegiance to you.' He extended his noble hand, but I withdrew my hand. He (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, 'What is wrong with you, O ‘Amr?' I said, 'I wanted to stipulate a condition.' He said, 'Stipulate what?' I said, 'I stipulate that I be forgiven.' He said, 'Do you not know that Islam demolishes what came before it, and that Hijrah demolishes what came before it, and that Hajj demolishes what came before it?'"

It is apparent that "what" (in ma kana qablahu) cannot be interpreted in all instances as absolute, as is not hidden. So do not be heedless. Some mentioned that when a disbeliever accepts Islam, he is required to repent and regret what has passed along with his faith, so that he may be forgiven. There is reflection to be had in that—so reflect.