Al-Hujurat (The Chambers): Verse 6

This Surah contains guidance for the believers regarding noble manners, which pertain either to God Almighty, or to the Messenger (peace be upon him), or to others of their own kind. These others are of two types: either they are following the path of the believers and are within the rank of obedience, or they are outside of it, being the transgressors (Fasiq).

The one who is within their group and follows their path is either present among them or absent from them. Thus, there are five categories:

1. Pertaining to the side of God.
2. Pertaining to the side of the Messenger.
3. Pertaining to the transgressors.
4. Pertaining to the present believer.
5. Pertaining to the absent believer.

God Almighty mentioned them five times in this Surah, beginning with: "That is because those who disbelieved..." (referring to the context of the verses). He guided them in each instance toward a noble virtue corresponding to one of these five categories:

1. First: "O you who have believed, do not put [yourselves] before Allah and His Messenger..." (Al-Hujurat: 1). Mentioning the Messenger clarifies obedience to God, as obedience to God is only known through the words of the Messenger of God.
2. Second: "...[He is] All-Knowing." (referring to the end of verse 1, leading into verse 2) "O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet..." (Al-Hujurat: 2), to clarify the obligation of respecting the Prophet (PBUH).
3. Third: "...[He is] Merciful." (referring to the end of verse 2, leading into verse 6) "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a transgressor with information..." (Al-Hujurat: 6), to clarify the obligation to be cautious about relying on their statements, as they intend to sow discord among you. This is also related to the interpretation of His saying: "And if two factions of the believers should fight..." (Al-Hujurat: 9).
4. Fourth: "...[He is] Most Merciful." (referring to the end of verse 6, leading into verse 11) "O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule a people..." (Al-Hujurat: 11) and "Nor defame one another..." (Al-Hujurat: 11), to clarify the obligation to refrain from harming believers in their presence and scorning their status and position.
5. Fifth: "...[He is] The Wrongdoer." (referring to the end of verse 11, leading into verse 12) "O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin..." (Al-Hujurat: 12), and "And do not spy..." (Al-Hujurat: 12), and "Nor let some of you backbite others." This clarifies the obligation to refrain from insulting the believer when he is absent, as he would be harmed if he were present. This arrangement is exquisitely ordered.

If it is asked: Why did God not mention the believer before the transgressor, to maintain a gradual progression starting with God, then the Messenger, then the present believer, then the absent believer, and finally the transgressor?

We reply: God prioritized what is most important over what is less important. He mentioned the aspect concerning God first, then the aspect concerning the Messenger. Then He mentioned what leads to fighting among the Muslim factions due to listening to and relying upon the words of the transgressor. He mentioned everything that causes the greatest aversion in the hearts first. As for the present or absent believer, one's actions toward them do not lead to killing. Do you not see that God Almighty mentioned the verse about fighting immediately after the news brought by the transgressor: "And if two factions of the believers should fight..."?

In the exegesis (Tafsir), there are several issues:

It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) sent Al-Walid ibn 'Uqbah (who was the maternal brother of Uthman) to the tribe of Banu al-Mustaliq as an administrator and tax collector. When they met him, he thought they intended to fight him, so he returned to the Prophet (PBUH) and said they refused and prevented him [from his duty]. The Prophet (PBUH) intended to take action against them, and then this verse was revealed, informing the Prophet (PBUH) that they had not done any of that.

This explanation is sound if we say the verse was revealed at that time. However, if they claim it was revealed only for that specific incident and restricted to it, then no. Rather, we say it was revealed generally to establish the need for verification and to avoid relying on the statement of a transgressor.

What indicates the weakness of the view that it was revealed solely for that incident is that God did not say, "I revealed this for such-and-such," nor is it narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) specified that the verse was revealed only for that. At most, it was revealed at that time, which serves as a historical marker for the revelation. We affirm this.

What confirms our position is that applying the term Fasiq (transgressor) to Al-Walid is inappropriate and distant, because he only suspected and erred based on assumption. One who errs is not called a Fasiq. How could he be, when the term Fasiq in most contexts refers to one who has exited the covenant of faith, based on His saying: "Indeed, Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people" (Al-Munafiqun: 6), and His saying: "So he disobeyed the command of his Lord" (Al-Kahf: 50), and His saying: "But as for those who became defiantly disobedient, their refuge will be the Fire. Every time they intend to exit it from the depths of pain, they will be returned to it" (As-Sajdah: 20), and other similar verses?

This points to a subtlety: A believer was characterized as being severe against the disbeliever. Therefore, it would not be easy for a Fasiq to bring him news, and if he did manage to do so, it would be rare. Hence, God used the conditional particle In (إن), which is only used when something is anticipated, as it is not appropriate to say, "If the unripe date ripens," or "If the sun rises."

The indefinite noun in the context of a condition implies generality when it is in the affirmative context, just as it implies generality in narration when it is in the negative context. Conversely, it implies specificity in the context of a condition when it is in the negative context, just as it implies specificity in narration when it is in the affirmative context.

We will explain this with an example and its proof:

Explanation by Example: If someone says to his slave: "If you speak to a man, you are free." This means: "I will not speak to any man until you are freed by speaking to every man." If he says: "If I do not speak to a man today, you are free." This means: "I will not speak today to any man until the slave is not freed by refraining from speaking to every man," just as his oath is not nullified by refraining from speaking to just one man.

Proof: The primary focus is on the affirmative side. Do you not see that without a particle, the default setting is affirmation? The statement "Zayd is standing" is established first and does not require a particle to indicate the affirmation of standing for Zayd. In the negative context, we need to say, "Zayd is not standing." If the default setting were negation, we would not need the extra particle for conciseness or brevity.

Given this, the statement "I saw a man" is sufficient if what validates the statement—seeing one man—is present. If you say, "I did not see a man," which is constructed to oppose "I saw a man," and since opposites should not both be true, if saying "I did not see a man" were sufficient by merely negating seeing more than one man, then our statement "I saw a man" and "I did not see a man" could both be true, meaning they would not be opposites. Therefore, the first convention necessitates the second convention, leading to generality in the negative context.

Knowing this, we say that the conditional structure was established first, and then it was combined with the decisive structure by adding a particle, which stands in opposition to the decisive structure. The statement "If you were not free, I would not speak to a man" reverts to the meaning of negation. Just as the generality of the statement regarding the Fasiq is known, the generality regarding the Naba' (information) is known. Thus, it means: Any Fasiq who brings you any information—verification concerning it is obligatory.

Regarding the first point (the command to pause): They argue that the command to pause is conditioned upon his being a Fasiq. If the report of a single just person were not accepted, then adding the condition of being a Fasiq would be meaningless. This is an argument based on Mafhum (implied meaning).

Regarding the second point (the unacceptability of the Fasiq's report), there are two arguments:

1. God commanded verification (Tabayyun). If his statement were accepted, the judge would not be commanded to verify. Therefore, the statement of the Fasiq is not accepted. Furthermore, God commanded verification concerning news and reports, while the ruling on testimony is a branch of the ruling on news.
2. God Almighty said: "Lest you afflict people out of ignorance..." (An tusibu). Ignorance is worse than error, because a jurist who errs is not called ignorant. Whoever bases a ruling on the statement of a Fasiq and is mistaken, that mistake is not ignorance, but basing the ruling on his statement is not permissible.

We mentioned two views regarding it:

1. The view of the Kufans: It means "so that you do not afflict" (Li-an la tusibu).
2. The view of the Basrans: It means "out of dislike that you afflict" (Karahata an tusibu).

It is also possible to say that it means: "So verify and guard yourselves."

His saying, "Lest you afflict people," clarifies what we mentioned: that the Fasiq might say something that sows discord among people, but this is not done through offensive language directed to the face or backbiting originating from believers, because a believer's religion prevents him from vulgarity and exaggeration in causing distress.

His saying, "out of ignorance" (bi-jāhalatin), is in the position of a Hal (a circumstantial adverb), meaning: "Lest you afflict them while you are ignorant." There is a subtlety here: the word Isābah (afflicting/hitting) is used for both good and bad, as in His saying: "Whatever good reaches you is from Allah" (An-Nisa: 79). However, it is more often used for what is bad. But negative assumption is mentioned alongside it, as in His saying: "If a misfortune befalls them..." (An-Nisa: 78). Then, this is confirmed by His saying: "...and you become regretful for what you have done." This clarifies that the ignorant person inevitably becomes regretful for his action.

His saying, "and you become" (fa-tusbihu), means "you become." Grammarians state that Asbaha (to become morning/to become) is used in three ways:

1. Meaning a person enters the morning, as one says: "We woke up [in the morning] judging him."
2. Meaning the matter was such-and-such at the time of morning, as one says: "Our sick person is better today than he was," although the state changed later in the day, implying he was in that state at dawn.
3. Meaning "to become" (Sāra), as one says: "Zayd became rich," intending that he became so, without specifying a time.

The intended meaning here is the third meaning, just as Amsā (to become evening) and Adhā (to become forenoon) are used.

However, this requires further clarification. We say: There must be a difference in meaning and benefit for the variation in words.

1. First Example: The statement "The child became understanding" means he began to acquire it and is increasing in it.
2. Second Example: The statement "The truth became clear and obligatory" means it reached its limit and attained its right.
3. Third Example: The statement "Zayd became learned and strong," if one does not intend that he began acquiring it, nor that he reached its limit, but rather that he is currently clothed in and characterized by it.

Knowing this, the primary usage of Asbaha is for when a thing begins to take on a description or starts a matter. The primary usage of Amsā is for when a thing reaches the end of a description. The primary usage of Adhā is for intermediacy.

Some say that users of the language do not differentiate between these matters and use all three words with one meaning. We reply: When meanings are close, using them interchangeably is permissible, and permissibility does not negate the original principle. Many words whose original meaning has passed are used commonly for things that do not share that original meaning.

Knowing this, we say His saying, "and you become regretful" (fa-tusbihu nādimīn), means: You become taking on regret and clothed in it, and then you perpetuate it. Similarly, in His saying: "And you become, by His favor, brothers" (Al 'Imran: 103), meaning you began the state of brotherhood and are increasing and continuing in it. In summary, the Qur'an chose this word because the matter associated with it is either reward or punishment, both of which involve increase, and divine matters have no end.

His saying, "regretful" (nādimīn): The root N-D-M in its variations is never separated from the meaning of permanence, as in the saying: "He is adman in drinking," meaning he persisted. From this comes al-Madīnah (the city, implying permanence).

His saying, "and you become regretful for what you have done," contains two benefits:

1. Confirmation and Emphasis of the Warning: After God said, "Lest you afflict people out of ignorance," He followed it up by saying, "...and you become regretful." This implies that this is not something to be ignored, nor is it permissible for an intelligent person to say, "Suppose I afflicted people, what is incumbent upon me?" Rather, you must have constant worry and abiding sorrow concerning it, and such a thing necessitates guarding against it.
2. Praise for the Believers: Meaning, you are not those who, when they commit a sin, pay no attention to it; rather, you become regretful over it.