Tafsir of At-Takweer 81:8-9

"And when the girl buried alive (al-maw'uda) is asked"—she is the female child who is buried alive. It is derived from al-wa'd, meaning heaviness, as if she were named such because she is weighed down by earth until she dies. It is also said to be an inversion of al-awd, a view reported by al-Murtada in his Durar from some linguists, though it is not accepted by Abu Hayyan. The Arabs used to bury their daughters alive out of fear of the disgrace that might befall them on their account; others said it was out of fear of poverty (imlaq), which perhaps applied to some of them. Among them were those who said, "The angels are the daughters of Allah"—exalted is He above what they say—thus attributing daughters to Him, the Exalted, while He is more entitled to them [if that were the case].

It has been mentioned by more than one that if a man among them had a daughter born to him and he wished to let her live, he would clothe her in a garment of wool or hair and have her tend to his camels and sheep in the desert. If he wanted to kill her, he would leave her until she was six years old, then say to her mother, "Dress her up and adorn her so I may take her to her relatives." He would have already dug a pit for her in the wilderness. Upon reaching the pit, he would say to her, "Look inside it," then push her from behind and heap earth upon her until the pit was level with the ground. It is said that a pregnant woman, when her time was near, would dig a hole and go into labor over its edge; if she gave birth to a girl, she would throw her into it, and if she gave birth to a boy, she would keep him.

I once read in some books, when I was a youth, that the first tribe among the Arabs to practice female infanticide was Rabi'ah. This occurred because they were raided, and a daughter of their leader was captured. After a peace treaty, she was recovered, and she was given a choice—with her father's consent—between him and the one who had taken her captive. She chose the captor and preferred him over her father. The father grew angry and established the practice of infanticide for his people; they did it out of jealousy and fear that a similar incident might happen to them again. It then spread to other Arabs, and Allah the Exalted knows the truth of that.

Al-Bazzi narrated in one transmission al-mu'da (المؤدة) like ma'una. It is possible the origin was al-maw'uda (الموؤدة), as in the reading of the majority, where the vowel of the hamza was transferred to the waw preceding it and the hamza was dropped, then the waw was hamzated. It is also possible that it is a passive participle from ada, and the origin was al-ma'wuda (المأوودة), then one of the two waws was dropped, becoming al-mu'da, just as maqwul became maqul. It was also read al-muwada (الموودة) with a damma on the first waw and a softening of the hamza—meaning the softening by dropping it and transferring its vowel to what precedes it.

In Majma' al-Bayan—and the responsibility lies with it—it is narrated from Abu Ja'far, Abu Abd Allah, and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that they read it al-mawada (المودة) with a fatha on the mim and the waw, the meaning being kinship and blood relations. From Abu Ja'far, it is narrated to mean the kinship of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the intent behind "killing" it is severing it, or it is meant literally and the attribution is figurative, meaning the killing of one who possesses that kinship.

The direction of the question to the girl buried alive in His saying, "is asked: for what sin she was killed," rather than the killer, even though the sin belongs to him and not her, is to console her and to manifest the completeness of wrath and indignation toward her killer, while casting him out of the rank of being addressed and exaggerating in his rebuke. For when the victim is asked in the presence of the perpetrator, and the crime is attributed to her rather than the perpetrator, this serves as a prompt for the perpetrator to reflect on his own state and the state of the victim. He then sees his own guilt and that he is the one deserving of reproach and punishment. This is a type of istidraj (luring into realization) occurring via the method of implication, as in His saying: "Did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'"

Ubayy, Ibn Mas'ud, al-Rabi' ibn Khuthaym, Ibn Ya'mar, and Ibn A'mur read it as sa'alat (سألت)—meaning she disputed, or asked Allah the Exalted, or asked her killer. It is said "she was killed" (qutilat) because the speech is a report about her, not a narration of how she was addressed when she was asked, so that it might be said qutilti (you were killed) in the second person, nor is it a narration of her speech when she asked, so that it might be said qataltu (I was killed) as a report from herself. This was also read by Ali (may Allah honor his face), Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir ibn Yazid, Abu al-Duha, and Mujahid. Al-Hasan and al-A'raj read su'ilat (سيلت) with a kasra on the sin, according to the dialect of those who say sala without a hamza. Abu Ja'far read it with a shadda on the ya, because the girl buried alive is a collective noun, so intensifying it was appropriate in view of the individuals.

The verse is evidence for the greatness of the crime of infanticide. Al-Bazzar, al-Hakim in al-Kuna, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan reported from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: Qays ibn 'Asim al-Tamimi came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "I buried eight of my daughters in the Jahiliyyah." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "Free a slave for each one." He replied, "I am a man of camels." He said, "Then sacrifice a camel for each one." This command was for recommendation, not obligation, as the validity of repentance is dependent upon it, for Islam wipes away what came before it of such things.

This indicates the gravity of the matter of infanticide. There were those among the Arabs who found it repulsive, such as Sa'sa'ah ibn Najiyah al-Mujashi'i, the grandfather of al-Farazdaq, who used to ransom the girls destined for burial from his tribe, Banu Tamim. Al-Farazdaq boasted of this in his saying: "And my grandfather who prevented the burial of daughters, and brought to life the buried one, so she was not buried." Al-Tabarani reported from him saying: I said, "O Messenger of Allah, I performed deeds in the Jahiliyyah, is there any reward in them? I brought to life three hundred and sixty of the buried alive, buying each one with two she-camels and a camel. Is there any reward for me in that?" The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "You have its reward, since Allah the Exalted bestowed upon you the favor of Islam."

The act of 'azl (coitus interruptus) is counted as a form of infanticide, based on what Imam Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani, and Ibn Mardawayh reported from Khudhama bint Wahb, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was asked about 'azl, and he said, "That is the hidden infanticide." From this, it was said that it is forbidden. You know that the issue is a matter of disagreement; Imam al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: "'Azl, which is for him to have intercourse and when he approaches ejaculation, he withdraws and ejaculates outside the vagina, is disliked in all cases and with every woman, whether she consents or not, because it is a way to cut off offspring. As for prohibition, our companions (the Shafi'is) have said it is not prohibited regarding his slave-girl nor his wife who is a slave, whether they consent or not, because there is harm upon the slave-girl by her becoming an 'umm walad' (mother of the child) and the inability to sell her, and there is harm upon the wife who is a slave by her child becoming a slave following the mother. As for his wife who is free, if she consents to it, it is not forbidden; otherwise, there are two views, the soundest of which is that it is not forbidden." Then the hadiths whose apparent meaning contradicts each other on this matter are reconciled by the fact that those which contain prohibition are interpreted as karahat al-tanzih (dislike), and those which contain permission are interpreted as it not being forbidden, and it does not mean the negation of dislike. End quote.

It has been answered regarding the aforementioned hadith that naming it "hidden infanticide" does not indicate that its ruling is the same as overt infanticide; it is authentically established that showing off (riya') is a "hidden shirk," yet no one has said its ruling is the same as [major] shirk. It is not far-fetched that masturbation by hand is a "hidden infanticide." Some have mentioned that if one does not fear committing zina, it is forbidden; if one fears it, it is not. Similarly, it is not far-fetched that thigh-intercourse with one whom it is lawful for him to have intercourse with is the same. I have not seen anyone claiming it is forbidden. The complete discussion on this subject is in the books of jurisprudence, so let them be referred to.

Al-Zamakhshari used the verse as evidence that the children of polytheists are not punished and that punishment is not deserved except for sin. As for the first: because rebuking her killer is inconsistent with punishing her, since the merit of the rebuke is due to her innocence from sin; so when He, the Exalted, rebukes the disbeliever for her innocence from sin, how could He then punish her, thereby doing to her what would make the act of the one who is rebuked—that is, the eternal punishment—forgotten? As for the second: it is due to the indication in His saying, "for what sin she was killed," for killing is only resorted to because of a sin, and it is not considered good to commit it without one. It is known that all punishment is in this same meaning. Thus, when the verse indicated that the girl buried alive had no sin—to perfect the rebuke—it entailed her not deserving punishment. It is claimed that Ibn Abbas was asked about this and used this verse as an argument. This is countered by the fact that what he mentioned is based on [the doctrine of] "rational good and evil," and the exposition of what is in them has been given in its place. Even if we concede, we deny that the cause of the rebuke is confined to her innocence. Furthermore, killing for the motive mentioned in the Quran—namely, fear of poverty—is a vice for which one deserves to be rebuked, whether the killed person deserved otherworldly punishment or not. The verse indicates that their motive for killing was not sin, not that the "sin"—that is, that for which the girl buried alive would deserve punishment—is non-existent in every respect. What is reported from Ibn Abbas, we do not accept as authentic; and there are reports that contradict it. Imam Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, and others reported from Salamah ibn Yazid al-Ju'fi that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "The female burier and the girl buried alive are both in the Fire, unless the female burier reaches Islam and Allah the Exalted pardons her." Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and al-Nasa'i reported from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was asked about the children of the polytheists, and he said: "Allah the Exalted, when He created them, was more knowing of what they would have been doing."

Its interpretation, as it is said, is what Abu Dawud reported from Aisha: I said, "O Messenger of Allah, the offspring of the believers?" He said, "They are from their fathers." I said, "Without deeds?" He said, "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing." I said, "O Messenger of Allah, the offspring of the polytheists?" He said, "They are from their fathers." I said, "Without deeds?" He said, "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing." In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, Khadija asked about two children, "What is their state in the Jahiliyyah?" The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "They are in the Fire."

You know that the issue of children from this perspective—excluding the children of the prophets (peace be upon them), for they are agreed upon as being of the people of Paradise, as al-Laqani said—is a matter of disagreement. Imam al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: "Those who are considered among the scholars of the Muslims have agreed that whoever dies among the children of the Muslims is of the people of Paradise because he is not a mukallaf (accountable)." Some who are not considered have paused on this due to the hadith of Aisha: A boy from the Ansar died, and she said, "Glad tidings to him, a sparrow of the sparrows of Paradise; he did not do evil and did not reach it." He (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "Or other than that, O Aisha? Verily, Allah the Exalted created for Paradise people, He created them for it while they were in the loins of their fathers, and He created for the Fire people, He created them for it while they were in the loins of their fathers." Scholars answered this by saying that perhaps he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade her from rushing to a definitive statement without having definitive evidence. It is also possible that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said this before he knew that the children of the Muslims are in Paradise. When he knew, he said what he said regarding his statement, "No Muslim dies whose three children have not reached puberty except that Allah the Exalted admits him to Paradise by His grace and mercy toward them," and other such hadiths.

As for the children of the polytheists, there are three schools of thought regarding them. The majority said they are in the Fire following their fathers, due to the hadith where he was asked about the children of the polytheists who die young, and he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing," meaning that and other things. A group paused on them. The third, which is the correct one taken by the researchers, is that they are of the people of Paradise. This is evidenced by several things: among them, the hadith of Ibrahim the Friend (peace be upon him) when the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) saw him in Paradise with the children of the people around him. They asked, "O Messenger of Allah, and the children of the polytheists?" He said, "And the children of the polytheists," reported by al-Bukhari in his Sahih. Among them is His saying, "And We never punish until We send a messenger," and accountability does not apply to the newborn, nor is the command of the Messenger binding upon him until he reaches puberty, and this is agreed upon. The answer to the hadith "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing" is that it does not contain an explicit statement that they are in the Fire; the truth of the phrase "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing" [is true] whether they reached maturity or not, and accountability cannot be except upon reaching maturity. End quote.

What he mentioned regarding the possibility in the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is countered by the fact that it is rejected by what he mentioned from the hadith of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). For the hadith of Aisha was in Medina, as it was about a boy from the Ansar, and his building it—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—upon it was only there. The hadith of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was in Mecca, as the appearance is that that vision was on the night of the Ascension, which was there. From this, one knows that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) knew that children were all in Paradise at that time, so how could it be possible that what he said later was said before he knew that the children of the Muslims were in Paradise? Also, if the hadith of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was in Mecca, it weakens the first answer to the hadith of Aisha by the possibility that she said what she said because that hadith had reached her.

Furthermore, the mention that the schools regarding the children of the polytheists are three is apparently based on what he came across; otherwise, they are not limited to them. Among them is that they are in a barzakh (intermediary realm) between Paradise and the Fire. Among them is that they will be tested by entering the Fire on the Day of Resurrection; whoever is destined for happiness will obey by entering it, so he will be returned to Paradise, and whoever is destined for misery will refrain, so he will be dragged to the Fire, as reported in some narrations. Thus, one does not judge any specific one of them as being for Paradise or the Fire, and "Allah the Exalted is more knowing of what they would have been doing" is carried upon this. In the choices of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, this is the best of the answers regarding them. Jalal al-Suyuti said it is the correct, relied-upon view. Among them is what this Jalal mentioned and was chosen by Imam al-Rabbani al-Faruqi al-Sirhindi (may his secret be sanctified) that they will be resurrected and then become dust like the beasts.

If what was meant by the aforementioned—that they are in Paradise—is that they are in it like the rest of its people, there is another view: that they are servants for its people. This was reported by al-Nasafi in Bahr al-Kalam regarding the People of the Sunnah and the Community, and there are many hadiths in it. The apparent meaning is that the children of the polytheists are those who were born to them while they were polytheists, even if they believed afterward. This is indicated by his (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) aforementioned statement regarding the two children of Khadija: "They are in the Fire." This contradicts those who say that the children of those who died as polytheists are in the Fire, and the children of the polytheists who believed after their deaths are in Paradise as an honor to them. I have chosen the view that children in an absolute sense—likewise the child of zina, and those who go insane before puberty—are in Paradise; they are created by the generosity of Allah and the vastness of His mercy, the Exalted and Majestic. This is more consistent with wisdom according to the apparent, and more supported by the verses. There is no obstacle to the reports indicating this outweighing the reports indicating otherwise. The claim that what those reports contained was from him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) before he knew that children were in Paradise is far-fetched in my opinion. Yes, it is permitted that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) reported that they were of the people of the Fire based on the revelation he received, just as he reported the warnings that Allah the Exalted pardons, in that it was restricted by a condition, for example, that it did not include them due to favor, but it was not mentioned with it—just as it was not mentioned with them—for a wisdom. Then, he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) reported that they were of the people of Paradise based on the revelation he received as well, and it would contain the news that the condition for them being of the people of the Fire does not materialize, out of the favor and generosity of Allah. This would be like the pardon for what the warning requires. Similar to this is his reporting what was mentioned based on seeing them in Paradise with Ibrahim (peace be upon him). So, contemplate.