| An-Nisa (The Women): (105 - 106) Indeed, We have revealed to you...

Regarding the Cohesion (Naẓm)

There are several ways to understand the connection of these verses:

First: After Allah extensively detailed the states of the hypocrites, the discourse then connected to the command of warfare. Connected to warfare are the related legal rulings, such as the ruling on accidental killing of a Muslim (mistaken for a disbeliever) and the rulings on the Prayer of Travel and the Prayer of Fear. Following this, the discourse returned to the state of the hypocrites, mentioning that they used to try to persuade the Prophet (peace be upon him) to judge falsely and abandon the truth. Allah informed His Messenger about this and commanded him not to pay attention to them or accept their word in this matter.

Second: After Allah clarified many rulings in this Surah, He indicated that everything known is through the revelation of Allah, and the Messenger is not permitted to deviate from any of it seeking the pleasure of his people.

Third: After Allah commanded striving against the disbelievers, He clarified that even though this is the case, treachery against them is not permissible, nor is attributing to them what they did not do. The disbelief of a disbeliever does not permit leniency in judging him; rather, the duty in religion is to judge for him and against him according to what was revealed to His Messenger, and not to inflict injustice upon the disbeliever just to please the hypocrite.

In this verse, there are several issues:

The exegetes agree that most of these verses were revealed concerning Ṭuʿmah ibn Ubayriq. There are several narrations regarding the incident:

1. Narration 1: Ṭuʿmah stole a coat of mail (armor). When the armor was sought from him, he falsely accused a Jew of the theft. When the dispute intensified between his people and the people of the Jew, his people came to the Prophet (PBUH) and asked him to support them in this matter and attribute the theft to the Jew. The Messenger (PBUH) intended to comply, and then this verse was revealed.
2. Narration 2: Someone deposited a coat of mail with him as a trust (wadīʿah), and there were no witnesses. When the owner demanded it back, he denied receiving it.
3. Narration 3: When the depositor demanded the trust, he claimed that the Jew had stolen the coat of mail.

The scholars stated that this indicates Ṭuʿmah and his people were hypocrites, otherwise, they would not have asked the Messenger to support falsehood and falsely attribute the theft to the Jew based on fabrication and slander. What confirms this is Allah’s saying: {And they only mislead themselves, and they will not harm you in anything} (An-Nisā’ 4:113). Furthermore, it is narrated that Ṭuʿmah fled to Mecca, apostatized, and when he tried to break through a wall there due to the theft, the wall collapsed upon him and he died.

Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī said regarding the phrase {As Allāh showed you} (bimā arāka Allāh):

1. It could be derived from the verb ra’aytu (to see) which requires one object (meaning visual sight). This is invalid because judgment in an incident is not perceived by the eye.
2. It could be derived from ra’aytu which takes two objects (meaning to perceive or consider). This is also invalid because it would require the verb to extend to three objects, not two. It is known that this word only extends to two objects: the attached pronoun (the 'you') and the implied object. The implied meaning is: "with what Allāh made you see."
3. Since the first two possibilities are void, the third remains: that ra’aytu here means belief/cognition (iʿtiqād).

Know that what we established is that {As Allāh showed you} means "as Allāh informed you." This knowledge (ʿilm) is called "sight" (ru’yah) because certain knowledge, free from any doubt, functions like visual sight in its strength and clarity.

Umar used to say: "No one should say, 'I judged according to what Allāh showed me,' for Allāh reserved that only for His Prophet. As for one of us, his view is conjecture (*ẓann*) and not certain knowledge (*ʿilm*)."

Once this is understood, the scholars state that this verse indicates that the Prophet (PBUH) did not judge except by revelation and explicit text (naṣṣ).

From this, two sub-issues arise:

1. Since it is established that the Prophet (PBUH) judged only by explicit text, it follows that the Ummah must also follow this, based on Allah’s saying: {And follow him} (Al-Aʿrāf 7:158).
2. If this is the case, then acting upon Analogy (Qiyās) must be forbidden (ḥarām).

The Response: When evidence is established that Qiyās is a valid proof (ḥujjah), then acting upon Qiyās is, in reality, acting upon the explicit text. The meaning becomes as if Allah said: "Whatever you strongly suspect (ghalaba ʿalā ẓannik) to be the ruling for the unmentioned case, due to a common attribute shared with the mentioned case, then know that My command for you is to act according to that strong suspicion. If this is the case, then acting upon this Qiyās is acting upon the very text itself."

Regarding the phrase: {And do not be an advocate for the traitors}

This phrase contains several issues:

The meaning is: Do not argue on behalf of the traitors against someone innocent of the crime. That is, do not argue against the Jews on behalf of the hypocrites.

Al-Wāḥidī, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Khaṣīmuk is the one who argues against you, and its plural is khuṣamā’. Its origin is from khaṣam, which means the side or edge of a thing. Khaṣam also refers to the corner of an angle or the edge of the eyelids. It is said that the two disputants are called khaṣmān because each one is on a side of the argument and claim. The sides of a cloud are also called khuṣūm.

Those who challenge the infallibility of the Prophets (peace be upon them) argue that this verse indicates the Prophet (PBUH) committed a sin, because if the Prophet (PBUH) had not intended to argue on behalf of the traitor and defend him, the prohibition would not have been issued.

The Response: A prohibition of an act does not necessitate that the prohibited person actually performed the prohibited act. Rather, it is established in the narration that when Ṭuʿmah’s people requested the Messenger (PBUH) to defend Ṭuʿmah and attribute the theft to the Jew, he paused and awaited revelation, and then this verse was revealed. The purpose of this prohibition was to alert the Prophet (PBUH) that Ṭuʿmah was a liar and the Jew was innocent of that crime.

If it is argued: The proof that the Prophet (PBUH) committed that offense is the subsequent verse: {And seek forgiveness from Allāh. Indeed, Allāh is ever Forgiving and Merciful} (An-Nisā’ 4:114). Since Allah commanded him to seek forgiveness, it indicates a prior sin.

The Response (in several ways):

1. Perhaps his natural disposition leaned toward supporting Ṭuʿmah because he outwardly appeared to be a Muslim. He was commanded to seek forgiveness for this degree of inclination, as "the good deeds of the righteous are the sins of the near ones [to God]."
2. Perhaps when the people testified to the Jew's theft and Ṭuʿmah's innocence, and nothing appeared to the Prophet (PBUH) that would discredit their testimony, he was about to rule the theft against the Jew. Then, when Allah informed him of the falsehood of those witnesses, he realized that if that judgment had occurred, it would have been an error in itself, even though he would have been excused by Allah for it. Thus, his seeking forgiveness was because he intended that judgment which, had it occurred, would have been an error, even though he was excused for it.
3. The phrase {And seek forgiveness from Allāh} could mean: "Seek forgiveness from Allāh for those who are defending Ṭuʿmah and trying to establish his innocence from the theft."

Then Allah said: