Al-Tawbah (The Repentance): Verses 65-66

Verse 65-66: "And if you ask them, they will surely say..."

In this verse, there are several issues to consider:

Several accounts are mentioned regarding the reason for the revelation of this verse:

1. Narration by Ibn 'Umar: A hypocrite during the expedition of Tabuk said, "I have never seen people more terrified in heart, more deceitful in tongue, or more cowardly in battle than these people," referring to the Prophet (PBUH) and the believers. One Companion replied, "You have lied, and you are a hypocrite!" When the Companion went to inform the Prophet, the Qur'an had already preceded him. The hypocrite then approached the Prophet (who was mounted on his she-camel) and said, "O Messenger of Allah, we were merely playing and chatting like travelers to pass the time." The Prophet (PBUH) responded, "(Is it Allah, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking?)" and did not turn to him or add anything further.
2. Al-Hasan and Qatadah's View: When the Prophet set out for Tabuk, the hypocrites said among themselves, "Do you think he will succeed and capture their strongholds and palaces? Far from it!" Upon his return, he called them out, saying, "You are the ones who said such and such." They replied, "This was not serious in our hearts; we were only engaging in idle talk and play."
3. The Retreated Ones: It is narrated that those who stayed behind from the Prophet's expedition were asked about their actions and the reason for their absence, and they gave this same statement.
4. Abu Muslim's Interpretation: It is reported from Abu Muslim that regarding the previous verse (Qur'an 9:64), "The hypocrites fear that a Sūrah might be revealed concerning them, informing them of what is in their hearts," he said they displayed this fear as a form of mockery. Thus, in this verse, Allah clarifies that when asked why they did that, they say, "We did not say that to criticize, but only because we were engaging in idle talk and play."
5. Scholarly Assessment: There is no need for these narrations to understand this verse. They simply indicate that the hypocrites uttered corrupt speech intended as ridicule and scorn. When the Prophet informed them of what they said, they became afraid and offered the excuse that they were only joking, not serious. Their statement, "We were only engaging in idle talk and play," implies that the word innamā (only/merely) restricts their intent. If it did not imply restriction, their being playful would not preclude them from also being mockers, which would invalidate their excuse.

Al-Wāḥidī explained that the root meaning of khawḍ (خوض) is plunging into a liquid substance like water or mud. It later became a term for entering into anything involving defilement or harm. The meaning here is: "We were plunging and playing in falsehood of speech, just as travelers engage in idle talk to pass the time."

The Prophet's response to them was: "(And if you ask them, they will surely say, 'We were only...')"

In this response, there are further issues:

Issue 1: The Difference in Phrasing

There is a difference between saying, "Are you mocking Allah?" (Atastahzi'u bi-Allāh?) and saying, "Is it Allah you are mocking?" (A-bi-Allāhi tastahzi'ūn?).

• The first form implies condemnation of the act of mocking.
• The second form implies condemnation of directing the mockery towards Allah. It is as if the speaker is saying, "Even if you were going to mock someone, how could you direct that mockery specifically toward Allah?" This is similar to the verse: "{For those who drink, there is no intoxication therein}" (Qur'an 37:47). The intent is not to deny intoxication entirely, but to deny that the wine of Paradise is a source of intoxication.

Issue 2: Mocking Allah, His Signs, and His Messenger

Allah states that they were mocking Allah, His Signs, and His Messenger. Mocking Allah directly is impossible (in terms of His essence). Therefore, this requires interpretation, which includes several possibilities:

1. Mocking Allah's Commands: The intent of mocking Allah is mocking the divine injunctions (Takālīf).
2. Mocking the Mention of Allah: It could mean mocking the mention of Allah's Name. Disbelievers may mock the names of Allah, just as believers glorify and revere them. Allah commanded the believer: "{Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High}" (Qur'an 87:1). He also said: "{And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them, and leave those who deviate from His names}" (Qur'an 7:180). Thus, it is not impossible to say "A-bi-Allāh" intending "by the mention of Allah."
3. Mocking Divine Power: When the hypocrites questioned how Muhammad could capture the strongholds of Syria and its palaces, some Muslims replied that Allah would help and support him. Some ignorant hypocrites then uttered speech implying criticism of Allah's power, which is characteristic of the ignorant and atheists. This is what was intended.

As for "and His Signs" (wa āyātihi), this refers to the Qur'an and everything else that indicates the religion. And "and His Messenger" (wa rasūlihi) is self-evident. This confirms that what they said was indeed intended as mockery.

In this statement, there are further issues:

Issue 1: The Meaning of I'tidhār (Making Excuses)

Al-Wāḥidī reports two views from linguists regarding the word i'tidhār:

1. Erasing the Sin: It is an expression for erasing a sin, derived from the saying i'tadhara al-manāzil (the dwellings became worn out/erased). One says, "I passed by a worn-out dwelling (manzil mu'tadhir)." Making an excuse (i'tidhār) is this erasure, as the one making the excuse tries to remove the trace of their sin.
2. Cutting Off: Ibn al-A'rābī narrated that i'tidhār means cutting off. This is why the foreskin is called ʿudhra (عذرة) because it is cut off, and the virginity of a girl is called ʿudhra because it is "cut off" (i.e., removed). Also, i'tadhārat al-miyāh means the waters ceased. The excuse (ʿudhr) is so named because it serves as a means to cut off blame.

Al-Wāḥidī noted that the two meanings are close, as erasing the trace of sin and cutting off blame are nearly identical.

Issue 2: The Invalidity of Their Excuse

Allah clarified that this mockery constituted disbelief (kufr). Reason dictates that engaging in disbelief for the sake of play is impermissible. Therefore, their statement "We were only engaging in idle talk and play" was not a genuine excuse for committing that mockery. Since it was not a valid excuse in itself, Allah forbade them from offering it, as prohibiting false speech is obligatory. Thus, "Make no excuse" means: Do not present this excuse to defend this grave offense.

Issue 3: Implications of "You have disbelieved after your belief"

This statement implies several rulings:

1. Mockery of Religion is Disbelief: Mocking the religion, in any form, is disbelief in Allah. This is because mockery indicates contempt, while the greatest pillar of faith is the utmost possible glorification of Allah. Combining the two is impossible.
2. Refutation of a View: It refutes the view of those who claim that disbelief can only reside in the actions of the heart.
3. Actual Disbelief: It indicates that their statement was truly disbelief, even though they were hypocrites before. This shows that disbelief can be renewed moment by moment, even by one who was already a disbeliever.
4. Occurrence After Faith: It indicates that the disbelief occurred after they had been believers.

A possible objection: Since they were hypocrites, how can it be correct to describe them as having disbelieved after their belief?

The Answer: Al-Hasan said the meaning is: "You disbelieved after the belief you manifested." Others said: "Your disbelief became apparent to the believers after you were considered Muslims among them." The two views are close.

In this statement, there are further issues:

Issue 1: Recitation Variants

• 'Āṣim's Recitation: Read as In naʿfu (We pardon) with the nūn (we) and the dhāl (ذ) with a kasra (i.e., active voice, "If We pardon a group..."). The object ṭā'ifah (group) is in the accusative case (mansūb). This means Allah is narrating Himself saying, "If I pardon one group, I will punish another."
• Other Recitations: The rest read it with the yā' (ي) and ḍamma (u) on the dhāl (ذ) and fatḥa (a) on the fā' (ف) in the passive voice (yuʿafu ʿan ṭā'ifatin - If a group is pardoned). Some narrations use the feminine passive (tuʿadhdhab ṭā'ifatun - a group will be punished).
• Al-Kashshāf's View: Mujāhid narrated the feminine passive form: In tuʿfa ʿan ṭā'ifatin. The author of Al-Kashshāf preferred the masculine active voice because the subject is the adverbial phrase (like saying sāra bi-l-dābbah - the riding animal traveled), not sirtu bi-l-dābbah (I traveled by the riding animal). The interpretation of the passive reading is strange, suggesting, "If you show mercy to a group, then so be it," which is unusual. The best reading is the common one: In yuʿaf ʿan ṭā'ifatin (masculine active) and tuʿadhdhab ṭā'ifatun (feminine passive).

Issue 2: The Composition of the Two Groups

The commentators mentioned that the people involved in the mockery were three: two mocked severely, and one merely laughed.

• The first group is the one who laughed.
• The second group is the one who mocked.

Commentators suggest that because the sin of the laugher was lighter, Allah pardoned him, while the sin of the mockers was graver, so they were not pardoned.

Al-Qāḍī's Critique: This view is distant because Allah judged both groups as having committed disbelief (kufr). Allah does not pardon a disbeliever except after repentance and return to Islam, nor does He punish a disbeliever except after persistence in disbelief. If one repents and returns to Islam, he is not punished. Since Allah stated He pardons one group and punishes the other, it implies that the group pardoned repented from disbelief and returned to Islam, while the group punished persisted in disbelief and did not return. Perhaps the one who laughed did not engage in severe slander and did not fully agree with the others in their speech, so his disbelief was lighter. Then Allah granted him success to believe and exit disbelief. This indicates that whoever engages in a false act should strive to minimize their involvement, as it is hoped that through the blessing of that minimization, Allah will grant them repentance for the whole matter.

Issue 3: The Term Ṭā'ifah (Group) for One Person

It is established by narrations that the two groups comprised three individuals. Therefore, one of the two groups must consist of a single person.

Al-Zajjāj's View: The root meaning of ṭā'ifah in language is a collection/assembly, as it is the measure that allows one to circle something. However, it is permissible to name one person ṭā'ifah. Allah says: "{And let a group of the believers witness their punishment}" (Qur'an 24:2). The minimum for this is one person. Al-Farrā' narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (RA) that ṭā'ifah means one person and above.

Arguments for naming one person ṭā'ifah:

1. Defense: Whoever chooses a doctrine and supports it constantly defends it, as if his heart circles around it and defends it from all sides. Thus, it is not far-fetched to call one person a ṭā'ifah for this reason.
2. Linguistic Usage: Ibn al-Anbārī said that Arabs sometimes use the plural form for a singular person. For example, they might say, "So-and-so went to Mecca on camels" (plural), referring to one person. Allah says: "{Those to whom the people said...}" (Qur'an 3:173), referring to Nu'aym ibn Mas'ūd (a single person).
3. Intensification: It is possible that when ṭā'ifah refers to one person, its origin was ṭā'if (circler), and the tā' marbūṭah (the final 'h') was added for emphasis.

Furthermore, Allah explains why the second group was punished by saying: "...because they were criminals (mujrimūn)."

We must note that since both groups shared in disbelief, they both shared in the crime (jirm). Yet, punishment is specific to one group, and attributing a specific ruling to a general cause is impermissible. Moreover, punishment is a present ruling, while "they were criminals" indicates the crime occurred in the past. Attributing a present ruling to a past cause is not strictly logical; it would have been better to say, "because they are criminals."

The Answer: This serves as an indication that the crime of the second group was more severe and stronger than the crime of the first group. Thus, the justification is linked to that severe crime. Furthermore, it indicates that this crime persisted and did not cease, thus necessitating punishment.

"{The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another; they enjoin evil and forbid good, and they clench their hands. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them. Indeed, the hypocrites are the defiantly disobedient (Fāsiqūn).}"