Al-Baqarah: (217) They ask you about the sacred month...

Issues in the Verse:

There is a difference of opinion regarding whether the questioner was among the Muslims or the disbelievers.

Group 1: The Questioner was Muslim

1. Argument 1: Since Allah commanded fighting, and the Sacred Month and the Sacred Mosque held great sanctity prohibiting fighting, it was not unlikely that the command to fight would be restricted to times and places outside of these. This prompted them to ask the Prophet (PBUH): "Is it permissible for us to fight them in this month and this place?" Thus, the verse was revealed, suggesting the question came from Muslims.

Group 2: The Questioner was Muslim (Majority of Commentators)

1. Narrative of Ibn Abbas: The Prophet (PBUH) sent Abdullah ibn Jahsh (his maternal cousin) with eight men, two months before the Battle of Badr and seventeen months after arriving in Medina. He gave him a sealed letter, instructing him to open it after traveling two stages, read it to his companions, and act upon it.
2. The letter commanded him to proceed with those who followed him to the valley of Nakhlah to observe the Quraysh caravan, hoping for some gain. Abdullah obeyed.
3. He told his companions: "Whoever desires martyrdom, follow me; I am proceeding according to the command. Whoever wishes to stay behind, may stay."
4. They reached Nakhlah, between Mecca and Ta'if, and encountered Amr ibn al-Hadrami and three others. When the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were seen, the pagans shaved the head of one of their men, implying they were the companions of Ammar.
5. Waqid ibn Abdullah al-Hanzali, one of Abdullah ibn Jahsh's companions, threw a spear at Amr ibn al-Hadrami, killing him. They captured two others and brought the caravan back to the Prophet (PBUH).
6. Quraysh protested, saying: "Muhammad has profaned the Sacred Month, a month in which the fearful are safe, by shedding blood." Muslims also found this action questionable.
7. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "I did not command you to fight in the Sacred Month." Abdullah ibn Jahsh said: "O Messenger of Allah, we killed Ibn al-Hadrami, and then the next evening we looked at the crescent of Rajab, and we do not know if we struck him in Rajab or Jumada."
8. The Prophet (PBUH) paused regarding the caravan and the captives, and then this verse was revealed. The Prophet (PBUH) then took the spoils.
9. Under this interpretation, the question most likely originated from Muslims for several reasons:
   • Most people present with the Prophet (PBUH) were Muslims.
   • The verses preceding and succeeding this one address Muslims (e.g., “Or do you think that you will enter Paradise...” and “They ask you about wine and gambling...”).
   • It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he never saw a people better than the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH); they only asked him about thirteen matters, all of which were recorded in the Quran, including “They ask you about the sacred month...”

The Second View: The Questioner was Disbelievers

1. They asked the Prophet (PBUH) about fighting in the Sacred Month so that even if he permitted it, they would attack him and justify fighting him.
2. Allah revealed: {They ask you about the sacred month, [and] fighting therein.} Meaning: They ask you about fighting in the Sacred Month. {Say, "Fighting therein is a great [sin]."}
3. However, {But preventing [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] the Sacred Mosque and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater to Allah.} Allah clarified that their goal in asking was to fight the Muslims.
4. Subsequently, Allah revealed: {The sacred month [is to be retaliated] for a sacred month, and unlawful things are [subject to] retaliation. So whoever attacks you, then attack him in like manner as he has attacked you.} (Al-Baqarah: 194). This verse explicitly permits fighting in self-defense.

The phrase {قتال فيه} (fighting therein) is in the genitive case (majrūr) as an appositive (badal) to {الشهر الحرام} (the sacred month). This is an instance of badal al-ishtimāl (apposition of inclusion), like saying, "I admired Zayd for his knowledge."

Alternatively, some say the genitive case for qitāl is due to the repetition of the operative word (the implied preposition ‘an): "They ask you about the sacred month, [they ask you] about fighting therein." This reading is supported by the recitation of Ibn Mas'ud and Al-Rabi'. A similar structure is found in: {For those [Arabs] who were made weak...} (Al-A'raf). Al-Ikrima recited it as {قتل فيه} (killing therein).

Regarding the statement: {Say, "Fighting therein is a great [sin]"}

{قتال فيه} (Fighting therein) is the subject (mubtada'), and {كبير} (great) is the predicate (khabar). Although qitāl is indefinite (nakirah), it is specified by {فيه} (therein), making it acceptable as a subject.

The meaning of {كبير} (great) is immense and reprehensible, similar to how a major sin is called kabīrah (great sin), as in: {Grave is the word that comes out of their mouths} (Al-Kahf: 5).

Inquiry: Why is qitāl indefinite in {قتال فيه} (fighting therein)? If a noun is repeated and indefinite, the second instance should typically use the definite article (al-) to indicate it refers to the first instance, otherwise, the second refers to something else (like in “Indeed, with hardship [will be] ease”).

Response: The people intended the specific fighting that Abdullah ibn Jahsh undertook when they asked: {They ask you about the sacred month, [and] fighting therein}. Allah responded: {Say, "Fighting therein is a great [sin]"}.

This implies that the fighting which is truly great is not the one they asked about. The fighting they undertook was to support Islam and humiliate the disbelievers, so how could it be a major sin? The truly great fighting is that whose purpose is to destroy Islam and strengthen disbelief.

The use of indefiniteness in both terms achieved this subtle point. Allah did not state this explicitly to avoid disheartening them. Instead, the wording is ambiguous: its outward appearance suggests what they intended, while its inner meaning aligns with the truth. This was achieved by using indefinite terms for both. If definition (al-) had been used for either term, this subtle benefit would have been lost. Glory be to Him, under every word of this Book lies a subtle secret only understood by those with intellect.

The majority agrees that the ruling of this verse established the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month. However, they differ on whether this ruling remains or has been abrogated.

1. View 1 (Prohibition remains, except for defense): Ibn Jurayj narrated that 'Ata swore that it is not permissible for people to wage war in the Sanctuary (Haram) or the Sacred Months, except in self-defense. Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did not fight in the Sacred Month unless he was fought against. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab was asked if Muslims could fight disbelievers in the Sacred Month, and he replied, "Yes." Abu 'Ubayd stated that the people on the frontiers today generally hold that fighting is permissible in all months, and he has not seen any scholar in Sham or Iraq object to this, consistent with the view of the people of Hijaz.
2. Argument for Permissibility (Abrogation): The evidence for permissibility is Allah's statement: {So kill the polytheists wherever you find them} (At-Tawbah: 5). This verse abrogates the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month.
3. My View (No Abrogation Needed): My view is that {Say, "Fighting therein is a great [sin]"} uses an indefinite noun in a positive context, which refers to a single instance, not all instances. Therefore, this verse does not indicate an absolute prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month, eliminating the need to assume abrogation.

Regarding the statement: {But preventing [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] the Sacred Mosque and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater to Allah}

There are several grammatical interpretations:

1. The Basran View (Chosen by Al-Zajjaj): The phrases {وصد عن سبيل الله وكفر به والمسجد الحرام وإخراج أهله منه} are all in the nominative case (marfū') as subjects (mubtada'), and the predicate is {أكبر عند الله} (greater to Allah).
   • Meaning: The fighting you asked about, although a great sin, these other actions are greater than it. If you do not refrain from these actions during the Sacred Month, how can you criticize Abdullah ibn Jahsh for that fighting, especially since he had an apparent excuse (it might have occurred in Jumada)? This is analogous to Allah saying to the Children of Israel: {Do you order righteousness in the people and forget yourselves?} (Al-Baqarah: 44).
   • Grammatical Dispute: They differed on the case of {والمسجد الحرام} (and the Sacred Mosque).
     • View A: It is coordinated (conjoined) with the pronoun hu (in bihi - in Him/it).
     • View B (Majority): It is coordinated with {سبيل الله} (the way of Allah), supported by {إن الذين كفروا ويصدون عن سبيل الله والمسجد الحرام} (Al-Hajj: 25).
   • Objections:
     • Against View A: It is impermissible to coordinate with a pronoun (e.g., "I passed by him and 'Amr").
     • Against View B: This implies the structure is "preventing from the way of Allah and preventing from the Sacred Mosque." Since the prepositional phrase ('an al-Masjid al-Haram) is separated from its governing verb (ṣadd) by an unrelated element, this is generally impermissible.
   • Rebuttals:
     • To Objection A: Why not assume an omitted preposition: "and [disbelief] in the Sacred Mosque"? Omission in God's speech is not strange. This is supported by Hamzah's recitation of {تساءلون به والأرحام} (An-Nisa: 1) in the genitive case.
     • To Objection B (The Majority): They concede that an unrelated element separates the ṣilah (the prepositional phrase) and the mawṣūl (the governing verb/preposition), but they justify it for two reasons: 1) Preventing from Allah's way and disbelief in Him are semantically one thing, so there is no real separation. 2) The phrase {وكفر به} (and disbelief in Him) was placed after {والمسجد الحرام} (and the Sacred Mosque) but was advanced due to extreme emphasis, similar to {And there was none comparable to Him} (Al-Ikhlas: 4).

2. The Kufan View (Chosen by Al-Farrā' and Abu Muslim al-Isfahani): {والمسجد الحرام} is coordinated via the conjunction waw with {الشهر الحرام} (the Sacred Month). The meaning is: "They ask you about fighting in the Sacred Month and the Sacred Mosque."
   • Path 1: {قتال فيه كبير} (Fighting therein is a great sin) is the subject and predicate. {وصد عن سبيل الله وكفر به} (And preventing from Allah's way and disbelief in Him) are subsequent predicates. Meaning: Fighting therein is judged as a great sin, and it is also preventing from Allah's way, and it is disbelief in Allah.
   • Path 2: {قتال فيه كبير} is a complete clause (subject/predicate). {وصد عن سبيل الله} is a new subject (nominative), as is {وكفر به}. The predicate is omitted, implied by what preceded: "Fighting therein is a great sin, and preventing from Allah's way is great, and disbelief in Him is great." (Analogy: "Zayd is walking, and 'Amr [is walking]").
   • Objections by Basrans:
     • Path 1 is weak because the question was about fighting in the Sacred Month, not the Sacred Mosque.
     • Path 1 implies that fighting in the Sacred Month is disbelief (kufr), which is unanimously false.
     • Path 2 implies that {وإخراج أهله منه أكبر} (and the expulsion of its people therefrom is greater) means the expulsion is greater than disbelief, which is unanimously false.
   • Al-Farrā's Response:
     • To the first objection: The text suggests they combined the sanctity of the month and the sanctity of the place in their question, as both were considered equally heinous by them.
     • To the second objection: We agree that fighting in the Sacred Month can be disbelief (since the noun is indefinite, it covers one instance of fighting in the Sacred Mosque, which is disbelief).
     • To the third objection: The "people of the Mosque" refers to the Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions. Expelling the Prophet from the Mosque in humiliation is certainly disbelief (kufr). Since this act is both disbelief and oppression (ẓulm), it is greater than an act that is only disbelief.

3. Third View: {قل قتال فيه كبير وصد عن سبل الله وكفر به}—the meaning is clear: fighting therein is described by these attributes. The genitive case for {والمسجد الحرام} is due to an oath (waw al-qasam), though the majority disregarded this view.

1. Meaning 1: Preventing belief in Allah and the Prophet (PBUH).
2. Meaning 2: Preventing Muslims from migrating to the Prophet (PBUH).
3. Meaning 3: Preventing Muslims from performing 'Umrah at the time of Hudaybiyyah. (A counter-argument is that the verse was revealed before Badr, while Hudaybiyyah was much later. The response is that what was known to Allah was as if it had occurred.)
4. Disbelief in Allah: Disbelief in His status as the Sender of Messengers, deserving of worship, and capable of resurrection.
5. {And [preventing access to] the Sacred Mosque}: If coordinated with the pronoun bihi (in Him/it), it means disbelief in the Sacred Mosque—i.e., preventing people from praying and circumambulating it, thereby denying the very reason for its sanctity. If coordinated with sabīl Allāh, it means preventing those performing Tawaf and I'tikaf from the Sacred Mosque.
6. {And the expulsion of its people therefrom}: This refers to the expulsion of Muslims from the Mosque, or from Mecca entirely. They are called its "people" because they upheld the rights of the House, as Allah says: {And they were the most worthy of it and its people} (Al-Fath: 26). Allah states the polytheists forfeited their guardianship through their polytheism (Al-Anfal: 34).

Conclusion on Greatness: Each of these actions is greater than fighting in the Sacred Month.

1. Each action is an act of disbelief (kufr), and disbelief is greater than fighting.
2. The fighting in question (Ibn al-Hadrami's killing) occurred when there was uncertainty about the month. However, the disbelievers were certain about committing these acts (preventing, disbelief, expulsion) in the Sacred Month. Therefore, the occurrence of these certain acts is greater.

Regarding the statement: {And the trial [fitnah] is greater than the killing}

There are two views on {الفتنة} (fitnah):

1. View 1 (Disbelief): This is the view of most commentators, but I find it weak because if fitnah meant disbelief, it would be redundant, as the verse already mentioned disbelief ({وكفر به}). This interpretation fits Al-Farrā's view better.
2. View 2 (Persecution/Trial): Fitnah refers to what they inflicted upon Muslims to turn them away from their religion, either through casting doubts or through torture (like what happened to Bilal, Suhayb, and Ammar ibn Yasir). This is the view of Muhammad ibn Ishaq.

Linguistic Basis for View 2: Fitnah means trial or test. Gold is tested (fatinatu) in fire to remove impurities.

• Quranic Examples:
  • {Your wealth and your children are but a trial [fitnah]} (At-Taghabun: 15): A test because spending wealth for Allah forces one to consider their children.
  • {Do people think that they will be left alone saying, "We believe," and they will not be tried [yuftanoon]} (Al-'Ankabut: 1-2): They will not be tested in their religion with various afflictions.
  • {And We tested you with trials [fitnan]} (Taha: 40): Testing through affliction.
  • {And of the people is he who says, "We believe in Allah," but when he is harmed for [the sake of] Allah, he takes the trial of the people as if it were the punishment of Allah} (Al-'Ankabut: 10): The affliction inflicted by disbelievers regarding religion.
  • {Indeed, those who persecuted the believing men and believing women and then did not repent...} (Al-Buruj: 10): They tortured them to test their steadfastness.
  • {There is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer if you fear that the disbelievers may [try to] afflict you [yaftinakum]} (An-Nisa: 101).
  • {They will not be able to afflict you [fātinīn]} (As-Saffat: 162-163).
  • {...seeking [to cause] trial [fitnah]} (Al 'Imran: 7): Trial in religion.
  • {And beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has sent down to you} (Al-Ma'idah: 49).
  • {Our Lord, do not make us a trial [fitnah] for those who disbelieve} (Al-Mumtahanah: 5). Meaning: lest they cause us to deviate from our religion, making their disbelief and oppression seem attractive.
  • {And you will see that they will follow [the doubtful part]...} (Al 'Imran: 7).
  • {And you will see, and they will see, by which of you is afflicted [al-maftūn]} (Al-Qalam: 65). Al-Maftūn is sometimes interpreted as the insane, and madness is a trial (fitnah) as it is an affliction leading away from soundness of mind.

Conclusion: Fitnah is the test/trial. The trial concerning religion is greater than killing because it leads to much killing in this world and warrants eternal punishment in the Hereafter. Thus, fitnah is greater than that specific killing (Ibn al-Hadrami's).

It is narrated that when this verse was revealed, Abdullah ibn Jahsh wrote to the believing Muslims in Mecca: If the polytheists taunt you for fighting in the Sacred Month, then taunt them for disbelief, expelling the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) from Mecca, and preventing the believers from the Sacred House. {They will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they are able.} This is similar to: {And never will the Jews or the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their religion} (Al-Baqarah: 120).

Further Issues in {They will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they are able}

Al-Wahidi said: {La Yazalun} (They will not cease) describes an action that has no source noun, nor a passive or active participle derived from it. Many verbs are like this, such as 'asa (perhaps), which has no source noun or present tense. Similarly: dhū, mā fati'a, halam, hāka, hāt, ta'āl.

The meaning of {لا يزالون} is that they persist in that action. The negation (mā) applied to zal (ceasing) results in the negation of the negation, indicating perpetual continuation.

It means "up to the point that they turn you back," or it could mean "in order to turn you back."

This implies an assessment of impossibility, like a man telling his enemy: "If you manage to defeat me, do not spare me," while being certain the enemy will never defeat him.

Regarding the statement: {And whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever...}

Al-Wahidi noted that {ومن يرتدد} (And whoever reverts) shows the taḍ'īf (doubling of the consonant) with the jazm (jussive mood) because the second letter is quiescent (silent). This is more common in Arabic than idghām (assimilation). {فيمت} (and dies) is in the jussive mood, coordinated with {يرتدد}. The response (jawab) is {فإن أولئك حبطت أعمالهم} (then those—their deeds have become worthless).

Since Allah clarified that their goal in fighting was for Muslims to revert from their religion, He immediately followed this with a severe threat regarding apostasy: {And whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever, then those—their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter}, and they deserve eternal punishment in the Fire.

The apparent meaning of the verse implies that the mentioned consequences (nullification of deeds, eternal punishment) only apply if the apostate dies while remaining a disbeliever. If he returns to Islam after apostatizing, none of these rulings apply.

This point leads to two discussions:

A. Theological Discussion (Uṣūlī): A group of theologians argued that the validity of faith (īmān) or disbelief (kufr) requires al-muwāfah (dying upon that state). Faith is only truly faith if one dies upon it, and disbelief is only truly disbelief if one dies upon it.

• Argument: If a believer apostatizes (may Allah forbid), and his apparent faith was true faith, he deserved eternal reward. After his disbelief, he deserves eternal punishment. These two entitlements cannot coexist (which is impossible), nor can we say the subsequent state nullifies the prior one, as this is also impossible for several reasons (e.g., it leads to circular reasoning or arbitrary preference).
• Conclusion: Therefore, if someone was a believer and then disbelieved, that prior faith, although we perceived it as faith, was not true faith in Allah's sight. Thus, al-muwāfah is a condition for faith to be faith and disbelief to be disbelief. This is what the verse indicates: the condition for apostasy to incur these consequences is that the apostate dies upon that apostasy.

B. Juristic Discussion (Furū'ī): If a Muslim prays, then apostatizes, and then returns to Islam within the time of the prayer, what is the ruling?

• Al-Shafi'i's View: He does not have to repeat the prayer.
• Abu Hanifa's View: He must make up what he performed (the prayer, and similarly Hajj).
• Al-Shafi'i's Evidence: {And whoever of you reverts... and dies while he is a disbeliever, then those—their deeds have become worthless}. The condition for nullification is dying as a disbeliever. This person did not meet that condition, so his deeds are not nullified.
• Counter-Argument: This is contradicted by {If they associated others with Allah, then surely worthless for them would be what they were doing} (Al-An'am: 88) and {And whoever disbelieves in faith, then his work has become worthless} (Al-Ma'idah: 5). The response is that applying the absolute ruling to the restricted one is not mandatory here.
• Rebuttal to Counter-Argument: This is not a case of absolute vs. restricted. If a ruling is tied to two conditions, and another ruling is tied to one of those conditions, the ruling takes effect upon the fulfillment of either condition. (Analogy of freeing a slave on Thursday, or on Thursday and Friday).
• Second Counter-Argument: This verse only proves that dying in apostasy is a condition for the entirety of the mentioned consequences (including eternal Hellfire). It does not prove it is a condition for the nullification of deeds alone.
• Response to Second Counter-Argument: This is a case of absolute vs. restricted. If mere apostasy nullified the deeds, then dying in apostasy would have no effect on nullification at any time, which is false. Therefore, it is not a case of one condition vs. two conditions, but absolute vs. restricted. The verse indicates that apostasy only causes nullification if death occurs upon it, and only causes eternal Hellfire if death occurs upon it.

Regarding the statement: {then those—their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter}

Linguistically, ḥabṭ refers to camels eating something harmful, causing their stomachs to swell and leading to their death. A Hadith mentions: "Among the plants that grow in spring are those that kill by ḥabṭ or cause illness." The nullification of deeds is named after this because it is the corruption of a thing due to the entry of a corrupting agent.

The nullification of deeds does not mean the deed itself ceases to exist, as the deed is an existing thing that vanishes upon completion. Debating this, theologians differed:

1. Those Affirming Nullification/Disbelief: The meaning is that the punishment for the subsequent apostasy removes the reward for the prior faith, either based on equivalence (the view of Abu Hashim and the majority of later Mu'tazilites) or without equivalence (Abu Ali's view).
2. Those Denying Nullification in this Sense: The meaning of iḥbāṭ in the Quran is that when an apostate commits apostasy, that act is a nullifying deed. The apostate could have performed a deed deserving reward instead, but he performed this bad deed which brings no benefit but the greatest harm. Thus, it is said his deed is nullified—he performed a futile act that brings harm.
   • They argue that whether this interpretation of iḥbāṭ is literal or metaphorical, we must accept it, as we have established definitive proof that al-muwāfah (dying upon the state) is a condition for the validity of faith, and that the effect of a subsequent act nullifying a prior act is impossible.

1. Nullification in This World: The apostate is fought until captured; he is not entitled to loyalty, support, or praise from Muslims; his wife is separated from him; and he does not inherit from Muslims. Alternatively, it means that whatever harm or conspiracy he intends against Muslims after apostasy by leaving their religion will be nullified, as Allah honors Islam through its supporters. In this interpretation, the "deeds" are those performed after apostasy.
2. Nullification in the Hereafter: For those affirming nullification, it means this apostasy invalidates their entitlement to the reward earned by their previous good deeds. For those denying it, it means they gain no reward or benefit from that apostasy in the Hereafter; rather, they gain the greatest harm, which Allah clarifies: {And those—they are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.}

{Indeed, those who believed and those who emigrated and strove in the cause of Allah—those expect the mercy of Allah. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}