Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:28

The word is used in the noun form [masdar] to emphasize the point, as if they were the very essence of filth itself. Or, the meaning is that they are possessors of filth due to the corruption of their inner selves and the depravity of their beliefs. It may also be because they harbor polytheism, which is equivalent to filth, or because they do not purify themselves, do not perform ritual bathing, and do not avoid impurities, such that filth is inherent to them.

It is permissible for "najas" to be a substantive adjective [sifah mushabbahah], a view held by Al-Jawhari. In that case, one must posit an implied noun—singular in wording but plural in meaning—to allow for its predication over a plural subject, such as "a filthy genus [jins najas]" and the like. Interpreting the verse according to one of these mentioned aspects is what the discourse of most jurists requires, as they held that the physical selves [a'yan] of the polytheists are pure, and there is no difference in that regard between idolaters and other classes of disbelievers.

However, it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that their physical selves are filthy, like dogs and swine. Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh recorded from him that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Whoever shakes hands with a polytheist, let him perform ablution or wash his palms." Ibn Mardawayh also recorded from Hisham ibn Urwah, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) met Gabriel (peace be upon him) and offered him his hand, but he refused to take it. He said: "O Gabriel, what prevented you from taking my hand?" He replied: "You took the hand of a Jew, and I disliked touching a hand that had touched the hand of a disbeliever." So, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) called for water, performed ablution, and offered him his hand again, and he took it.

Imam al-Razi leaned toward the view narrated by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), which is also what the apparent meaning of the verse suggests; one should not deviate from the apparent meaning except by a separate proof. It was said that, accordingly, it is not permissible to drink from their vessels, to eat with them, or to wear their clothes. Yet, it is authentically reported from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the predecessors otherwise, and the possibility that this occurred before the revelation of the verse—meaning it was abrogated—is far-fetched. The necessity of caution [ihtiyat] is evident.

The argument for their purity—that if their physical selves were filthy, they could not be purified by faith, as faith is not understood to be a purifying agent—is invalid. Do you not see that if a swine were to say "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," it would not become pure? Only that which is filthy by essence becomes pure through transformation [istihala], according to those who hold that view, and the person of the disbeliever is not transformed by faith into another essence. This argument is baseless, even if those startled by loud rhetoric might think otherwise. Purity and impurity are matters subordinate to what is understood from the speech of the Lawgiver (peace and blessings be upon him); they are not tied to transformation or the lack thereof. If one understands from it the impurity of something at one time and its purity at another, or vice versa—as in the case of wine—one must follow that, even if no transformation has occurred. This is evident.

Ibn al-Sumayqa' read it as anjas (the plural form), and Abu Haywah read it as najas (with a kasra under the nun and a sukun over the jim), which is a shortening of najas (like kabd in kibd). In that case, a noun is implied, as we established regarding what Al-Jawhari said. This term mostly appears in succession to rijs. The statement of Al-Farra, followed by Al-Hariri in his Durrah, that this is not permissible without being joined [to rijs], is refuted by this reading, as there is no such succession here.

"So let them not approach the Sacred Mosque." This is a derivative ruling based on their impurity. The intended meaning is a prohibition against entering, though it forbids "approaching" to emphasize the distance. Abd al-Razzaq and Al-Nahhas recorded from 'Ata that they were forbidden from entering the entire Sanctuary [Haram]. Thus, the prohibition from approaching the Mosque itself is taken according to its literal meaning. Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted the literal interpretation, as he directed the prohibition from entering the Sanctuary toward the prohibition of performing Hajj and Umrah. This is supported by His saying (Exalted is He): "after this year of theirs." Restricting the prohibition to that time indicates that the forbidden act is specific to a time within the year—meaning they shall not perform Hajj or Umrah after the Hajj of that year, which was the ninth year of the Hijrah, when Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was put in charge of the pilgrimage. This is further evidenced by the proclamation of Ali (may Allah honor his face) on the day he announced Bara'ah: "No polytheist shall perform Hajj after this year of ours." Likewise, His saying (Glorified is He): "And if you fear poverty"—meaning destitution due to preventing them, as they used to bring goods for trade during the season—indicates that this would only occur if they were prevented from entering the Sanctuary, as is clear.

In sum: the Great Imam [Abu Hanifah] holds the view that they are prohibited from Hajj and Umrah, and he interprets the prohibition as applying to those acts. In his view, they are not prohibited from entering the Sacred Mosque or other mosques. The school of Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Malik (may Allah be pleased with them)—as Al-Khazin stated—is that it is not permissible for a disbeliever, whether a dhimmi or one granted safe passage, to enter the Sacred Mosque under any circumstances. If an envoy comes from the Abode of Disbelief and the Imam is present, he does not permit him to enter; rather, he goes out to him himself or sends someone who will hear his message outside. Entering other mosques is permissible according to Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him). According to Malik, all mosques are the same in prohibiting a disbeliever from entering them. Some claimed that the prohibition in the verse refers only to the custodianship of the Sacred Mosque and the administration of its interests, but this is highly contrary to the apparent meaning.

The apparent meaning is the prohibition as you have known it, and the fact that their impurity is the cause does not necessitate that the act is permitted for someone who has performed a bath and worn clean clothes. This is because the specification of a cause does not restrict the ruling, as in the case of istibra' [seeking purity]. The expression is along the lines of "I must not see you here," which is a metonymy for forbidding the believers from enabling them to do what was mentioned, as evidenced by the fact that what precedes and follows it is an address to the believers. Whoever takes it in its literal sense argues that disbelievers are addressed by the branches of the Law [furu'], since they are forbidden from it here, and the prohibition is among the legal rulings. The fact that they are not deterred by it does not matter once the meaning of their being addressed by them is understood.

It is narrated that when the prohibition came, it weighed heavily upon the believers, and they said: "Who will bring us our food and goods?" So Allah (Glorified is He) revealed: "And if you fear poverty, then Allah will enrich you from His bounty." That is, His gift, or His favoring them in another way. The [preposition] min [from] in the first case is initiatory or partitive, and in the second, it is causal. Allah (Exalted is He) fulfilled His promise by sending the sky down upon them in abundant rain, and by guiding the people of Najd, Tabalah, and Jurash, so they embraced Islam and brought them food and what they needed for their livelihoods. Then, He opened the lands and spoils to them, and people came to them from every deep valley. It is narrated from Ibn Jubayr that he interpreted the "bounty" as the jizyah, which is supported by the command that follows. What we have mentioned is better, and the matter of the testimony is trivial.

It was read as a'ilah, meaning either a noun like al-'aqibah and al-'afiyah, or an active participle modifying an implied feminine noun—meaning a state that is a'ilah [impoverished]. The restriction of the enrichment with His saying (Exalted is He): "if He wills" is not for hesitation, which would be inconsistent with the context and the reason for revelation, but rather to declare that it is by His will alone, with no cause other than it, so that they may rely solely on Him (Exalted is He) and cease looking to others. In this is an alert that He (Exalted is He) is Bountiful in that enrichment, not that it is incumbent upon Him (Exalted is He); for if it were by necessity, it would not have been entrusted to the will. It is also permissible that the restriction is because enrichment is not uniform according to individuals, circumstances, and times.

"Indeed, Allah is Knowing" of your states and interests, "Wise" in what He gives and withholds.