Muhammad: (4) So when you meet those who disbelieve...

Then the Almighty said: {So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have thoroughly subdued them, then secure their bonds} (47:4).

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Function of the Fā’ (ف) in {فإذا لقيتم}

The fā’ (ف) in {فإذا لقيتم} implies a consequence or something that follows, which must be connected to what preceded it. What is the connection to the preceding verses?

There are several possibilities:

1. Connection to the Nullification of Deeds: Since it was established that the deeds of the disbelievers are misguided and that human value is based on action (and one without action is like scattered dust), if such a person then causes harm, their elimination is appropriate. Thus, {So when you meet them}—after their lack of sanctity and the invalidation of their deeds have become clear—{strike their necks}.
2. Connection to the Distinction between Parties: When the difference between the two groups (the party of Satan following falsehood and the party of the Most Merciful following truth) becomes evident, fighting becomes incumbent upon their gathering. Therefore, when you meet them, fight them.
3. Refutation of Weak-Hearted Views: Some people, due to weak hearts and limited insight, consider harming living beings, especially killing (which is the destruction of a structure), to be oppression and tyranny. In response, it is said: Since value is determined by adherence to truth or falsehood, those who fight for the sake of God are promised a reward like that of the praying or fasting person. Therefore, {So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks} and do not show them mercy, for this is adherence to the truth, judged by the essence of the act, not merely its outward form.

Issue 2: The Grammatical Form of {فضرب}

{فضرب} is in the accusative case (manṣūb) as a maṣdar (verbal noun), meaning: "So strike a striking of the necks."

Issue 3: The Wisdom in Specifying Striking the Neck

Why was striking the neck chosen over other parts of the body?

The wisdom lies in the fact that the believer is not initiating aggression but defending against an aggressor. One who repels an assailant should not initially aim for killing but should proceed gradually, striking non-lethal areas. If the aggression ceases, that is sufficient, and one should not escalate to annihilation.

However, in this context, the objective is not mere defense but the removal of the disbelievers from the face of the earth and purifying the earth of them, as the earth is made a place of worship for Muslims, and the polytheists are impure, and a place of worship must be purified of impurity. Therefore, the primary intention should be killing them, unlike repelling an assailant.

The neck is the most apparent target in warfare because severing the throat and jugular vessels inevitably leads to death. In battle, achieving this precise cut might not be feasible, but the neck is exposed. Striking the neck implies cutting the neck, which necessitates death, unlike striking other areas, especially in combat.

Furthermore, the term {لقيتم} (when you meet) implies that the aggression originates from their side, unlike saying "when they meet you" (laqīkum). This is why in other places, it is stated: {And kill them wherever you find them} (2:191).

Issue 4: The Difference Between {ضرب الرقاب} and {فوق الأعناق}

Here, the verse states {فضرب الرقاب} (striking the necks) using the maṣdar (verbal noun) and omitting the verb. In Al-Anfāl (8:12), it states {فاضربوا فوق الأعناق} (strike above the necks) using the verb and omitting the maṣdar. Is there a significance to this difference?

Yes, and we can clarify this with a preliminary point: Sometimes, the primary focus in a verse is the occurrence of the action by an agent, with the maṣdar being implicitly included (since an agent cannot act without the action occurring). Other times, the primary focus is the maṣdar itself, which necessitates an agent to perform it.

• Example: If someone says, "I swore an oath to leave the city." If told, "Then leave!" the focus is on the act of leaving by him; the leaving itself is not the ultimate goal separate from his action.
• If someone says, "The place has become tight due to the enemies," and is told, "The leaving [i.e., al-khurūj] means leave!" the maṣdar (leaving) is what is sought. If leaving could occur without an agent, the goal would be achieved, but this is impossible, so the action follows.

Knowing this:

1. In Al-Anfāl, the context describes an ongoing battle where angels were sent down to support those present in the fighting lines. Thus, the occurrence of the action by the agents was required.
2. Here, the command is conditional: {فإذا لقيتم} (When you meet them), indicating it is not the heat of battle. The focus is on establishing the maṣdar as the primary requirement, preceding the action itself. Hence, {فضرب الرقاب}.

Another benefit of this distinction: In Al-Anfāl, it says {واضربوا منهم كل بنان} (strike from them every fingertip) (8:12). This is because that was the time of active fighting, guiding them to strike lethal and non-lethal targets if the lethal one was missed. Here, since it is not the time of active fighting, the verse specifies that the goal is killing, which is the Muslim's objective.

Issue 5: The Meaning of {حتى إذا أثخنتموهم}

{حتى} (until) indicates the limit of the command, not the limit of the killing itself. It means: until you have subdued them, the command to kill ceases, and permission remains. If it meant the limit of killing, killing would not be permissible even when they are subdued. Killing is only prohibited when the subdued person reaches a state like an extremely old man, or when his limbs are severed, at which point he should not be killed.

Then the Almighty said: {فشدوا الوثاق} (then secure their bonds)—this is a guidance command.

Then the Almighty said: {فإما منا بعد وإما فداء} (then either release [them] as a favor afterwards, or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens). There are several issues here:

Issue 1: The Scope of Options After Captivity

The particle {إما} (either/or) implies restriction. However, their status after capture is not limited to these two options; killing and enslavement are also permissible.

The response is that this is guidance, mentioning the general permissible options for captives. Enslavement was not permissible for Arab captives because the Prophet (PBUH) was among them (implying a special status or context). As for killing, it is implied that the subdued person is likely to remain severely wounded (al-muthkhan), and killing was already mentioned in {فضرب الرقاب}. Thus, only these two options remain.

Issue 2: The Grammar of {منا} and {فداء}

{منا} (favor/release) and {فداء} (ransom) are in the accusative case because they are maṣdars. The implied meaning is: "Either you bestow a favor, or you ransom with a ransom." Prioritizing {منا} (favor) over {فداء} (ransom) indicates the preference for the sanctity of life over acquiring wealth. Ransom can be monetary, or it can involve exchanging them for other captives, or imposing a condition upon them or solely upon one party.

Issue 3: Omitting the Object

If we assume the implied verbs (you bestow favor or you ransom), such as "Either you bestow favor upon them a favor, or you ransom them with a ransom," this is incorrect. The goal is the act of favoring or ransoming, not specifying upon whom (i.e., not "upon them"). This is like saying, "So-and-so gives and withholds," without specifying to whom he gives or withholds, because the focus is on his action, not the recipient. Similarly here, the goal is to guide the believers toward virtue.

Then the Almighty said: {حتى تضع الحرب أوزارها} (until the war lays down its burdens).

There are two ways {حتى} (until) can be connected:

1. It is connected to the command to kill: "Kill them until the war lays down its burdens."
2. It is connected to the release or ransom.

It is also possible that it relates to securing the bonds ({شدوا الوثاق}). However, its connection to killing is more apparent, even if the mention of killing is further back.

There are two interpretations for {الأوزار} (burdens):

1. Weapons.
2. Sins.

Issue 1: If "Sins" is Meant

If "sins" is meant, how does war lay down sins, as the sin lies upon the combatants? This question applies to "weapons" as well, but it is stronger regarding sins. The answer is that the war does not lay down the burdens by itself, but it causes the burdens (sins) upon the combatants and the weapons they carry to be laid down.

Issue 2: Comparison with {حتى تضع أمة الحرب}

Is this like the verse in Yusuf (12:82), {حتى تكون أمة} (until a nation comes), where it seems to mean "until the nation of war lays down its burdens"?

This is plausible at first glance, but upon deeper reflection, there is a difference. The intent of {فداء حتى تضع الحرب أوزارها} is the complete cessation of war, such that no party of disbelief remains fighting a party of Islam in the world. If we said "until the nation of war lays down its burdens," it is possible they might lay down their weapons and cease fighting while the potential for war remains, as one might say, "My dispute is not settled, but I have left it these days." Attributing the laying down to War itself means that War has ceased to exist.

Issue 3: Comparison with "Until No Party Remains"

If the verse said, "Until no party remains, or they refrain from war," would it convey the meaning of {حتى تضع الحرب أوزارها}?

No. The difference between the expressions, looking beyond mere structure to the meaning itself, is like the difference between saying, "The Umayyad state became extinct," and "No trace of their state remains." The latter is more emphatic. Similarly, {أوزارها} means its effects (its burdens are its effects).

Issue 4: The Time of Laying Down the Burdens

When is this time? The opinions converge on the time when no party of Islam remains fighting a party of disbelief. Some say it is at the time of fighting the Dajjal and the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Then the Almighty said: {ذالك ولو يشاء الله لانتصر منهم} (That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them).

There are two meanings for {ذالك} (That):

1. It refers to the command itself: "That command is established," with the subject being omitted.
2. It can mean "That is necessary" or "That is a prerequisite," like saying, "If you do this, that is what is intended and desired."

Then it is clarified that fighting them is not the only necessary path; rather, if God had willed, He could have destroyed them without an army.

{ولكن ليبلو بعضكم ببعض} (But [He willed] to test some of you by means of others).

This means: But to obligate you [with duties], thereby earning you the honor of being chosen for this matter.

If it is asked: What is the reality of saying that obligation is a test/trial, when God knows the secret and what is more hidden? What is understood from {ولكن ليبلو بعضكم ببعض}?

There are several views:

1. It means God acts as those who test act (i.e., He performs the action of testing).
2. God tests to make the matter manifest to others, either the angels or the people.

The reality is that testing, trial, and examination are actions through which something other than the actor becomes manifest. This manifestation is what the wise intentionally seek when testing. Saying "an action through which something becomes manifest" falls under the definition of testing because if nothing becomes manifest through it, it is not called a test.

Regarding "something other than the actor being manifest": If someone strikes cucumbers and gourds with his sword, one does not say he is testing [the sword], because the outcome (cutting/slicing) is definite. But if he strikes a lion to defend himself, one says he is testing his sword—he might cut it, or he might not. If he strikes the lion to defend himself, one does not say he is testing, because his striking is not aimed at revealing a definite outcome.

Knowing this, when God commands us to perform an action through which an indefinite outcome becomes manifest—either obedience or disobedience—He is testing, even though He already knows it. Lack of knowledge is not a prerequisite for testing; rather, testing is commanded because the lack of knowledge is inherent in us when we are tested.

If it is asked: The benefit of testing is gaining knowledge for the tested person. If God is already All-Knowing, what is the benefit? This question is not unique to testing. It is like asking, "Why punish the disbeliever when He is self-sufficient?" or "Why create fire that burns when He could create it to benefit without harm?" The answer is: {He is not questioned for what He does}. The predecessors said it is to make manifest a definite matter for the divine knowledge. Furthermore, the tested person does not need the outcome that becomes manifest through the test. The one testing the sword, in our example, does not need the outcome of cutting the object he tests with. If he needed the outcome (like defending against the lion), one would not say he is testing.

The statement {ولكن ليبلو بعضكم ببعض} points to this lack of necessity, reinforcing the preceding statement: {ذالك ولو يشاء الله لانتصر منهم}.

Then the Almighty said: {والذين قتلوا فى سبيل الله فلن يضل أعمالهم} (And those who are killed in the cause of Allah—never will He waste their deeds).

This was read as {قتلوا} (killed—passive) or {قاتلوا} (fought—active). Both are appropriate.

• If read as {قتلوا} (passive): Since the command was {فضرب الرقاب} (strike their necks), meaning "kill them," this verse clarifies the reward for the killer, responding to those who claim killing is forbidden corruption, as it involves annihilating an honored being. Their deeds are not like the deeds of the disbeliever that are wasted; rather, their deeds are superior to the misguided deeds of the disbeliever. God misguided the deeds of the disbelievers, but He will not waste the deeds of the killers. How, then, can killing be a sin?
• If read as {قاتلوا} (active): This is more comprehensive, including anyone who strives toward killing, whether they are killed or not.
• If read as {قتلوا} (passive): This fits the preceding context in several ways:
  1. Since the command was {فضرب الرقاب} (kill), and killing requires boldness, fear of being killed might prevent the aggressor. This verse assures them: Do not fear death, for whoever is killed in the cause of God has a reward and recompense that prevents the fighter from holding back and actually encourages him.
  2. Since God said {ليبلو بعضكم ببعض} (to test some of you by means of others), the one tested has a state resulting from the test. The sword being tested increases in value if it cuts, and decreases if it breaks. What is the state of the tested person? It is said: If he fights and survives, his deeds will not be wasted, he will be guided, honored, and enter Paradise. If he is killed, his reward is obvious, immediately or eventually. The state of the survivor is left implicit because the state of the killed person is explicitly mentioned.
  3. God tests precious things only with things that do not risk their destruction. A fine, valuable sword is not tested against something hard that risks its breaking. Yet, man is honored by God. Why test him with fighting, which often leads to death? The response is that death is not annihilation for the believer; it leads to eternal life. Thus, when He tests him with fighting, if he is killed, he is honored; if he survives (whether he fought or not), death is inevitable anyway, and if he refrained from fighting, he forfeits a great reward.

Regarding {فلن يضل أعمالهم} (never will He waste their deeds): We know the meaning of wasting/misguiding. The difference between the expressions for the disbeliever and the believer lies here:

• For the disbeliever, He said {أضل} (wasted/misguided) in the past tense (4:1).
• For the believer who fights, He said {لن يضل} (will never waste).

This is because the fighter is a caller to faith, as the meaning of {حتى تضع الحرب أوزارها} was established as "until no sin remains due to war," which occurs when the disbeliever accepts Islam. The fighter says: either accept Islam or be killed. He is a caller, while the disbeliever is obstinate. There is a complete contrast between them.

Therefore, concerning the disbeliever, He used the past tense {أضل}, not {يضل}, indicating that once his deed existed, it was nullified, as if it never existed. Concerning the believer, He said {فلن يضل}, not {ما أضل}, indicating that as long as his deed is established, it remains established for him, and {لن} implies perpetuity (for eternity). There is the utmost difference between these two, just as there is the utmost contrast between the caller and the obstinate one.

If it is asked: What is the meaning of the fā’ (ف) in {فلن يضل}?

The answer is that {والذين قتلوا} (And those who are killed) carries the meaning of a condition.