Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:12

(And if they violate their oaths) — This is a conjunction attached to His, the Exalted’s, saying: (If they repent), meaning: If they do not do that, but rather violate (their oaths after their covenant which was sworn by) and reveal what is in their consciences of evil, bringing it from potentiality into action. It is also permissible that the meaning is: If they remain and persist in the violation they are upon. Some have interpreted "violation" as apostasy, based on the context of its mention in opposition to (If they repent), but the first [interpretation] is more appropriate for the context.

(And criticize your religion) — They disparaged it by finding fault with it and condemning its rulings openly. Ibn al-Munir maintained that a Dhimmi’s (protected non-Muslim) criticism of our religion among his own people, if it reaches us, is also counted as this. Many, including the aforementioned scholar, considered this a violation of the covenant, making the conjunction one of the specific following the general. Through this, the objection is resolved: "It would have been more apparent to say 'or criticize'," since each of the criticism and what preceded it is sufficient to warrant killing and fighting. The notion that the 'wa' (and) is in the sense of 'or' is far-fetched. It has been said that the conjunction is for explanation, as in your saying: "So-and-so disparaged me and did such-and-such to me," meaning: "If they violate their oaths by criticizing your religion." The first [view] is more appropriate.

There is no difference between directing the criticism at the religion itself in general or directing it at some of its details, such as prayer and pilgrimage, for example. Among that is criticizing the Quran or mentioning the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and far be it from him—with evil. Consequently, the Dhimmi is to be killed for it according to a group of scholars, arguing by the verse, regardless of whether the invalidation of the covenant is conditioned upon it or not. Among those who said he should be killed if he manifests cursing, and Allah’s refuge is sought, are Malik and al-Shafi’i; it is also the position of al-Layth, and Ibn al-Humam issued a legal verdict (fatwa) for it.

The claim that Ahl al-Dhimma (the protected people) are left to their original disbelief by paying the Jizya, and that this [criticism] is not greater than that, and therefore they should also be left to it, is not criticism in any sense, nor is it fairness in any sense. It would necessitate that they should not be disciplined (ta’zir) either, just as they are disciplined after paying the Jizya for their original disbelief. Truly, this is selling the one of peerless existence, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, for a cheap price; for the entire world and everything in it—nay, even the entire hereafter in the scale of his lofty station—is [no more than] the wing of a mosquito or less.

Some said: The verse does not indicate what that group claimed with any of the modes of indication, and it is explicit that the combination of violation and criticism results in what resulted; so how can it indicate killing by mere criticism? This [argument] has its own issues. It is not hidden that the position of "criticism" is appropriate alongside the "fighting" indicated by His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Then fight the leaders of disbelief), meaning: Then fight them. The explicit noun [leaders] was placed in the position of the pronoun. They were named "leaders" because they thereby became chiefs, preceding others in their own estimation; thus they are worthy of fighting and killing. This was narrated from al-Hasan.

It is said: The meaning of their "leaders" is their chiefs and their headmen, such as Abu Sufyan and al-Harith ibn Hisham. Singling them out for mention is because killing them is more important, not because others are not to be killed. It is also said: [It is to mention them] to prevent guarding against them, for they are the ones expected to do so, or to signify their total eradication, for their killing is usually after the killing of those below them. Mujahid stated that they are the Persians and the Romans, though this is far-fetched. Ibn Abi Shaybah and others reported from Hudhayfah, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: "The people of this verse have not been fought yet," and I do not know what he intended, and Allah the Exalted knows best his intent.

Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, and Abu ‘Amr read (أئمة - A'immah) with two hamzas, the second of which is "between-between," meaning between the articulation point of the hamza and the ya/alif. The Kufans and Ibn Dhakwan from Ibn ‘Amir read with the verification of both without inserting an alif, and Hisham likewise, except he inserted the alif between them. This is the well-known [view] from the seven reciters. Abu Hayyan reported from Nafi’ the lengthening between the two hamzas and the ya; this was weakened as some investigators said regarding the reading of verification, and the "between-between" [was weakened] by a group of grammarians like al-Farisi. Some of them rejected the "between-between" facilitation. [Another] read with a light-kasra ya. As for the reading with the ya, Abu ‘Ali and a group approved it, while al-Zamakhshari labeled it a solecism, though Abu Hayyan faulted him for that, because it is the reading of the chief of reciters and grammarians, Abu ‘Amr, and the reading of Ibn Kathir and Nafi’. It is authentic by transmission, and its absence from the path of al-Taysir necessitates constriction. Similarly, [it is authentic] by derivation; for he himself mentioned in al-Mufassal, and all the Imams mentioned in their books, that if two hamzas meet in a word, the path is to convert the second into a letter of prolongation, as in Adam and A'immah. Thus, the excuse offered for him is not accepted.

The result is that the recitations here are: the verification of the two hamzas; making the second "between-between" without inserting an alif; and with it; and the fifth with an explicit ya. All of them are correct; there is no ground for denying them. The pattern of A'immah is Af'ilah, like Himar and Ahmirah; its origin is A'immah, then the vowel of the mim was transferred to the hamza, and it was assimilated. When the meeting of two hamzas became heavy, they fled from it and did what they did.

(They have no oaths) — meaning, in reality, for they do not observe them, nor do they fulfill them, nor do they see the breaking of them as a deficiency, even if they let them pass over their tongues. The negation was attached to them, just like the violation mentioned previously, not to the covenant confirmed by them, because [the oaths] are the foundation of the pacts. The sentence is in the position of providing a reason—either for the content of the conditional clause, as if it were said: "And if they violate and criticize, as is expected of them since they truly have no oaths to violate, then fight," or for the continuity of the commanded fighting inferred from the context. As if it were said: "Then fight them until they believe, [for] they have no oaths," until another contract is made with them.

Making it an explanation for the command to fight is not supported by connecting it to the violation and the criticism, because their state of having no oaths in reality after that is like their state before it. Carrying it to the meaning of their oaths not remaining after the violation and criticism—even though there is no need to explain this—is contrary to the apparent meaning. It is said: It is an explanation for what is inferred from the speech regarding the judgment upon them that they are "leaders of disbelief," i.e., they are the chiefs of the disbelievers and the greatest in evil, since they added to their disbelief the lack of observing oaths; and this is as you see. The negation in the verse, according to Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, is as it appears: the oath of a disbeliever is not, in his view, a legally reckoned oath. According to al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, it is an oath, because Allah the Exalted described it with "violation" at the beginning of the verse, and that cannot occur where there is no oath. It has been answered that this is in consideration of their own belief that it is an oath, though this is weakened by the fact that the information is from Allah the Exalted and the address is to the believers. Others said: Using the "violation" as evidence for the "oath" is an indication or implication, while "they have no oaths" is an explicit statement; thus [the explicit] prevails. The saying that it is interpreted [figuratively] to reconcile the evidences is debatable, because if interpretation is necessary in one of the two sides, interpreting the non-explicit is better; perhaps there is no consideration of precedence or sequence in that. The fruit of the disagreement is: if a disbeliever accepts Islam after an oath was formed during his disbelief, then he breaks it, is expiation binding upon him? According to Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, it is not; according to al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, it is.

Ibn ‘Amir read (إيمان - Iman) with a kasra on the hamza, based on it being the verbal noun of amana-hu imanan, meaning: he granted him safety. It is used in the sense of what results from the verbal noun, which is safety. The meaning is that there is no way for you to grant them safety after that, ever. It is said: This negation is based on the verse being about the polytheists of the Arabs, and they have nothing but Islam or the sword. Some people claimed that the meaning is that there is no way for them to give you safety after it; but in this is that it implies their treaty with us is based on the method of the granting of safety being from them, which is clearly false. Or, that Iman means Islam; and the sentence on this [reading] is an explanation for the content of the conditional clause and nothing else, as explained by the Shaykh al-Islam. As if it were said: If they violate and criticize, as is apparent from their state, because it is [a lack of] Islam for them, until they desist from violating the genus of their faith and from criticizing your religion.

He who said that the apostate’s repentance is not accepted clung to this verse on this reading, based on the fact that the "violator" is the apostate, and faith has been negated from him. Its negation, even though he might perform it, is a negation of its soundness and being reckoned. Its weakness is not hidden, given what you know of the verse's meaning. They have said: "Possibility invalidates evidence." The Judge—may Allah the Exalted whiten the brilliance of his conditions—said in explaining its weakness: It is permissible that the meaning is the negation of faith from specific people, and informing about them that a seal has been set upon their hearts, so no faith will ever originate from them. Or, the meaning is that the polytheists have no faith for which they should be guarded or given respite. It is understood from this that he did not make the sentence an explanation for the content of the conditional clause as we mentioned. The apparent [meaning] is that he made it an explanation for His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Then fight), meaning: The obstacle to killing them is one of two things: either the covenant—which they have violated—or the faith—which they have forbidden themselves [from]. Perhaps this is interpreted as making it the cause for what is understood from the speech, as if it were said: If they violate and criticize, then fight them and do not pause, for there is no obstacle at all after that, because they have no faith to serve as an obstacle. Its [meaning] is not hidden.

Even if it is said that it invalidates what was said: "That describing the leaders of disbelief as having no Islam is redundant and unnecessary," and making the sentence an explanation for what is inferred from the speech regarding the judgment upon them as leaders of disbelief—i.e., its chiefs—under the possibility that it is meant to inform about specific people whose hearts were sealed, is more apparent than making it an explanation for it according to the previous reading. Yes, the report of sealing [the heart] rejects His, the Exalted’s, saying: (That they may desist), for with sealing, desisting is not conceivable. It is attached to His, the Exalted’s, saying: (Then fight), meaning: Fight them intending that they desist—i.e., let your purpose for the fighting be their desisting from what they are upon of disbelief and all other major sins, not merely inflicting harm upon them, as is the habit of the malicious. From what has been established, it is known that the hope is from the addresses [the believers], not from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.