Surah At-Tawbah

It is a Madani Surah, as has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Qatadah, and a great multitude. Some have even claimed there is a consensus on this. Ibn al-Faras stated: "It is such, except for two verses within it: 'There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves...' (9:128) until the end." This, however, is problematic based on what is found in al-Mustadrak from Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and what Abu al-Shaykh recorded in his Tafsir from Ali ibn Zayd, from Yusuf al-Makki, from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the last verse to be revealed was: "There has certainly come to you..." and so on. The various ways of reconciling the differing opinions regarding the "last revelation" do not apply here. Others excepted the verse, "It is not for the Prophet..." (9:113), based on the report that it was revealed concerning the Prophet’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement to Abu Talib: "I will surely seek forgiveness for you as long as I am not forbidden from doing so." As Ibn Kaysan stated, it was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijrah.

It has several names:

• At-Tawbah (The Repentance): Due to the Almighty's saying therein: "Allah has already forgiven the Prophet and the Muhajirin and the Ansar..." (9:117) up to His saying: "And upon the three who were left behind" (9:118).
• Al-Fadihah (The Exposer): Abu Ubayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others recorded from Ibn Jubayr that he said: "I said to Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them—'Surah at-Tawbah?' He replied: 'At-Tawbah? Nay, it is the Fadihah! It kept being revealed, saying "and among them," and "and among them," until we thought that no one among us would be left unmentioned in it.'"
• Surat al-Adhab (The Surah of Punishment): Al-Hakim recorded in his Mustadrak from Hudhayfah that he said: "The one you call Surah at-Tawbah is the Surah of Punishment." Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ibn Jubayr that he said: "When Surah Bara'ah was mentioned to Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—and it was called Surah at-Tawbah, he would say: 'It is closer to punishment; it did not cease to strip away from the people until it barely left any of them out.'"
• Al-Muqashqishah (The Curer): Ibn Mardawayh and others recorded from Zayd ibn Aslam that a man said to Abdullah [ibn Umar]: "Surah at-Tawbah?" Ibn Umar replied: "Which one is Surah at-Tawbah?" He said: "Bara'ah." He (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Did anything cause the people so much turmoil except it? We used not to call it by any name other than al-Muqashqishah," meaning the one that clears or exonerates. Perhaps he meant the clearing away of hypocrisy.
• Al-Munqirah (The Stripper/Revealer): Abu al-Shaykh recorded from Ubayd ibn Umayr that he said: "Bara'ah was called al-Munqirah because it dug into (naqarat) what was in the hearts of the polytheists."
• Al-Buhuth: With a fatha on the ba, it is an intensive form derived from al-bahth (searching/investigation) in the sense of the active participle, as narrated by al-Hakim from al-Miqdad.
• Al-Mu'aththirah (The Discloser): Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Muhammad ibn Ishaq that he said: "In the time of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and after, Bara'ah was called al-Mu'aththirah because it revealed the secrets of the people." It is thought that this might be a misreading of "al-Munqirah" after much conjecture.

Ibn al-Faras mentioned that it is also called al-Hafirah (The Digger), because it dug into the hearts of the hypocrites; this is also narrated from al-Hasan. It is called al-Muthirah (The Inciter), as narrated from Qatadah, because it stirred up their vices and ugliness. It is called al-Mudamdimah (The Destroyer/Silencer), as narrated from Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, and also al-Mukhziyah (The Disgracer), al-Munakkilah (The Exemplary Punisher), and al-Musharridah (The Disperser), as mentioned by al-Sakhawi and others.

Regarding Surat Bara'ah, Sa'id ibn Mansur, al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu'ab, and others recorded from Abu Atiyyah al-Hamdani that he said: "Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—wrote: 'Learn Surah Bara'ah, and teach your women Surah an-Nur.'" It consists of 129 verses according to the Kufans, and 130 according to the others.

The aspect of its connection to [Surah] al-Anfal is that in the former [al-Anfal], there is the distribution of spoils and the allocation of its fifth to five categories, as you have learned. In this [Surah], there is the distribution of alms (sadaqat) and its allocation to eight categories, as you will learn, God willing. Also, in the former, there is mention of treaties, while here is the renunciation of them. Furthermore, in the former, He—the Almighty—commanded preparation, saying: "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power" (8:60), while here He rebukes the hypocrites for their lack of preparation, saying: "And if they had intended to go forth, they would have prepared for it some equipment" (9:46). Finally, He—the Almighty—concluded the former with the obligation that the believers should take each other as allies and be completely detached from the disbelievers, and He—the Exalted and Glorious—declared this meaning explicitly in this [Surah] by His saying: [...]

(An immunity from Allah and His Messenger), and so on, concerning the various aspects of the context. Qatadah and others have stated that it and al-Anfal are a single surah, which is why the Basmala (the phrase "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful") was not written between them. It has also been said regarding the reason for its omission that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) differed as to whether it was a full surah or part of one; so they separated it from al-Anfal to respect those who say they are two surahs, and they did not write the Basmala to respect those who say they are one. The truth is that they are two surahs, but the Basmala was not written between them based on what Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) from Ali (may Allah honor his face) that the Basmala is a security, while this immunity was revealed by the sword. A similar view is narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and Sufyan ibn Uyaynah. The gist of this is that it was not revealed with this surah, unlike its counterparts, for the reason mentioned. The view of independence is supported by it being named [as it is].

The Great Shaykh (may his secret be sanctified) chose in his Futuhat that they are one surah, and that the omission was for that reason. He said in the 311th chapter, after some discussion: "As for Surat at-Tawbah, people have differed over whether it is an independent surah like the rest of the surahs, or whether it and Surat al-Anfal are one surah. The completeness of a surah is only known by the separation of the Basmala, and it did not come here, which indicates that it is part of Surat al-Anfal. This is the most plausible view, even if there is an argument for its omission based on the lack of suitability between mercy and disavowal. But that [argument] does not possess much strength; it is a weak view."

The reason for its weakness is that the name "Allah" in the Basmala contains what [the immunity] seeks, and the immunity is from the associate (shirk), not from the associate (mushrik). For how could the Creator disavow the created? If He were to disavow him, who would preserve his existence for him? The associate is non-existent, so disavowal from it is valid. It is a quality of tanzih (declaration of perfection/transcendence), and the tanzih of Allah from the associate, and of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) from the belief of ignorance. Another aspect of the weakness of this interpretation we have mentioned is that the Basmala is present at the beginning of Surat al-Humazah ("Woe to every backbiter") and al-Mutaffifin ("Woe to the defrauders"). Where is the mercy in "woe"? End quote.

It may be said: The notion that the immunity is from the associate is not apparent from its verse at all, and you will learn, if Allah wills, what is meant by it. What he (may his secret be sanctified) mentioned in the other aspect of the weakness can be answered by saying that this surah resembles no other, for it did not leave anyone—as Hudhayfah said—without attacking them, denigrating them, and going to extremes regarding their state. As for the hypocrites and disbelievers, it is manifest. As for the believers, it is in His saying: (O you who believe, do not take your fathers...) up to (the corrupt), which is among the harshest things one can be addressed with, let alone the follower. There is nothing like this in the surah of "Woe" (al-Humazah) or the surah of "Perish" (al-Masad). Even if one were to concede that a surah might contain some kind of what this contains, the distinction in quantity and quality is something that cannot be denied. For this reason, the Basmala was omitted in it, according to what I say. Although the Majestic Name (Allah) implies the dominance that fits what the surah contains, it also contains other things, alongside being explicitly paired with things that contain nothing but mercy. The intent here is only to manifest the attribute of dominance, and this does not come about through opening with the Basmala, even if one grants the exclusive devotion of the Majestic Name to it.

Yes, He (the Exalted) did not abandon His habit of opening surahs entirely here, as He opened this surah with the letter ba just as He opened others with it within the Basmala, even if the ba of the Basmala is a word, while the ba of this surah is part of a word. This is due to a subtle secret known to those who possess it.

Furthermore, it is narrated from al-Sakhawi that he said in Jamal al-Qurra': "It is well-known that the Basmala is omitted at the beginning of Bara'ah. It is narrated from Asim that the Basmala is [to be read] at its beginning, and this is the analytical [logical] rule. For its omission is either because it was revealed by the sword, or because they were not certain it was an independent surah, but rather [part] of al-Anfal. The first [reason] does not hold, because it is specific to those against whom it was revealed, while we recite it for blessing. Do you not see that it is permissible by consensus to say 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' [followed by] (And fight the polytheists) and the like? And if the omission is because it is not independent, then the Basmala at the beginning of the parts is permissible." It is narrated that it exists in the codex of Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Matadar inclined toward reciting it, and in al-Iqna', it is permitted. The truth is that it is recommended to omit it, since it was not written in the Imam [Uthmanic codex], and one does not follow others in this. As for the view that it is forbidden and that its omission is obligatory, as some Shafi'i scholars have said, the apparent truth is the opposite. I see no harm in saying it for one who begins recitation from the middle of the surah. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

(An immunity from Allah and His Messenger), meaning: This is an immunity. The tanwin (indefinite marking) is for magnification. The "from" (min) is for origination, as indicated by its counterpart "to" (ila). It is connected to an omitted [predicate] that serves as an adjective for the subject, because its connection to the subject [directly] is corrupt—meaning: one arriving from Allah. They estimated it as such, rather than "achieved," to minimize the estimation, because the to (ila) that follows also connects to it. It is also permitted that it be an initial noun (mubtada') due to it being specified by its adjective, and its predicate is His saying: (To those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists).

Isa ibn Amr recited Bara'atan (accusative), and it is in the accusative by the verb "listen" or "adhere" as a form of incitement. The people of Najran recited min Allahi (with a kasra on the nun), based on the rule that the origin of animating a quiescent letter is kasra. However, the fatha is the preferred form when combined with the definite article (al) to avoid two consecutive kasras.

The reason why that to which the immunity is related was not mentioned—as in His saying: (Indeed, Allah is free from the polytheists)—is to suffice with what is in the realm of the relative clause, for it provides information about it explicitly, and to avoid the repetition of the word "from." The 'ahd (covenant) is the contract bound by oath. The address in (you made a treaty) is to the Muslims, for they had made treaties with the polytheists of the Arabs among the people of Makkah and others by the permission of Allah and the agreement of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Then they broke the treaty, except for the Banu Damrah and Banu Kinanah. The Muslims were commanded to discard the covenant toward those who broke it, and they were granted four months to travel wherever they wished.

The immunity was attributed to Allah and His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) even though it includes the Muslims in their sharing of its ruling and the obligation to act according to its requirements. The covenant was attached specifically to the Muslims, despite it being by the permission of Allah and the agreement of the Messenger, to indicate that it is executed and binding without awaiting the opinion of the addressees. This is because it is a termination of the ruling of safety and the removal of the protection resulting from the previous covenant regarding the aggression of the disbelievers. That is tied to the side of Allah without being dependent on anything at all. The inclusion of the Muslims is only by way of compliance and nothing more. As for the covenant, since it was a contract like all other legal contracts, it does not come to fruition, nor do its rulings take effect, except through the actions of the contractors in a manner that cannot be imagined to originate from Him (the Exalted). What originates from Him (the Exalted) is the permission for that, while the actors are the Muslims. It is not hidden that the immunity relates to the covenant, not to the permission for it; therefore, each one was attributed to the one who is the foundation for it. Furthermore, there is in this a magnification of the status of the immunity, a terrorizing of the polytheists, a registration against them of the ultimate humiliation, disgrace, failure, and desertion, and a declaration of the transcendence of the court of Majesty from anything that might suggest a trace of imperfection or "change of mind"—Allah is far above that with great loftiness. Including the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in the first attribution and excluding him from the second is to elevate his exalted status (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in both stations. This is how some researchers have refined it, and it is a sound direction.

Some claimed that since the covenant was not obligatory, but rather permissible and authorized, it was attributed to them—unlike the immunity, which is obligatory by His commandment (the Exalted); thus it was attributed to the Lawgiver. This is as you can see. Ibn al-Munir mentioned as the secret of this that attributing the covenant to Allah and His Messenger in a station where the renunciation of the polytheists is mentioned is not appropriate in terms of etiquette. Do you not see the instruction of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to the commanders of the raiding parties, where he says to them: "If you lay siege to a fortress and they ask to descend upon the judgment of Allah, do not let them descend upon the judgment of Allah, but let them descend upon your own judgment, for you do not know if you have hit the judgment of Allah regarding them or not. And if they ask for the protection of Allah, do not let them descend upon the protection of Allah, but let them descend upon your own protection, for it is better that your protection be violated than that the protection of Allah be violated." Look, then, at his command (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to honor the protection of Allah for fear that it might be violated, even if the expected outcome had not yet occurred. So, honoring the covenant of Allah—after the polytheists have fulfilled the act of breaking it and after He (the Exalted) and His Messenger have disavowed it—by not attributing the discarded covenant to Him (the Exalted) is more appropriate and worthy. Therefore, the covenant was attributed to the Muslims, not the immunity from it. This is not devoid of beauty, though it is not as sufficient as what has preceded.

It has been said: The mention of Allah is for the purpose of preparation, like His saying (the Exalted): (Do not put yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger), out of respect for his status (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Had it not been for the intent of preparation, the "from" (min) would have been repeated, as in His saying (the Mighty and Majestic): (How can there be for the polytheists a covenant before Allah and before His Messenger?). The immunity was attributed to the Messenger, and the covenant to them, because of their partnership in the second [case] and not the first. This is countered by the fact that what is in it is not hidden, for whoever the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is free from, the believers are also free from. What was mentioned regarding the repetition of the preposition is not necessary, and what he mentioned regarding preparation does not suit the context because the terrorizing [effect] would be weak in that case. It is said: You may say that He only attributed the covenant to the Muslims because Allah (the Exalted) knew that they had no covenant [of their own], and He informed His Messenger of it. Thus, He did not attribute the covenant to Himself because of His immunity from them and their covenant in pre-eternity. This is the point of using the nominal, declarative sentence, even if it is said that it is an originating sentence for disavowal of them, and thus it indicated renewal.

The response to this is that the discussion of "pre-eternity" does not apply to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in an apparent sense, and through interpretation, the consideration of the Muslims is not far-fetched. The point of using the nominal sentence—which is to indicate permanence and continuity—is not dependent on that discussion [of pre-eternity]. Rather, it was mentioned by those who did not mention it, alongside the point of resorting to terrorizing by means of indefinite magnification.