Tafsir of Surah An-Nisa' - Verse 106

The Necessity of Referring to What Allah has Revealed for Judgement

Allah says to His Messenger, Muhammad ﷺ,

إِنَّآ أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَـبَ بِالْحَقِّ

(Surely, We have sent down to you the Book in truth) meaning, it truly came from Allah and its narrations and commandments are true. Allah then said,

لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَآ أَرَاكَ اللَّهُ

(that you might judge between men by that which Allah has shown you,) In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Zaynab bint Umm Salamah said that Umm Salamah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ heard the noise of disputing people close to the door of his room, and he went out to them saying,

«أَلَا إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ، وَإِنَّمَا أَقْضِي بِنَحْوٍ مِمَّا أَسْمَعُ، وَلَعَلَّ أَحَدَكُمْ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَلْحَنَ بِحُجَّتِهِ مِنْ بَعْضٍ فَأَقْضِيَ لَهُ، فَمَنْ قَضَيْتُ لَهُ بِحَقِّ مُسْلِمٍ، فَإِنَّمَا هِيَ قِطْعَةٌ مِنْ نَارٍ، فَلْيَحْمِلْهَا أَوْ لِيَذَرْهَا»

(Verily, I am only human and I judge based on what I hear. Some of you might be more eloquent in presenting his case than others, so that I judge in his favor. If I judge in one's favor concerning the right of another Muslim, then it is a piece of the Fire. So let one take it or leave it.) Imam Ahmad recorded that Umm Salamah said, "Two men from the Ansar came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with a dispute regarding some old inheritance, but they did not have evidence. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«إِنَّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ إِلَيَ، وَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ، وَلَعَلَّ بَعْضَكُمْ أَلْحَنُ بِحُجَّتِهِ مِنْ بَعْضٍ، وَإِنَّما أَقْضِي بَيْنَكُمْ عَلى نَحْوٍ مِمَّا أَسْمَعُ، فَمَنْ قَضَيْتُ لَهُ مِنْ حَقِّ أَخِيهِ شَيْئًا فَلَا يَأْخُذْهُ، فَإِنَّمَا أَقْطَعُ لَهُ قِطْعَةً مِنَ النَّارِ، يَأْتِي بِهَا إِسْطَامًا فِي عُنُقِهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَة»

(You bring your disputes to me, but I am only human. Some of you might be more persuasive in their arguments than others. I only judge between you according to what I hear. Therefore, whomever I judge in his favor and give him a part of his brother's right, let him not take it, for it is a part of the Fire that I am giving him and it will be tied around his neck on the Day of Resurrection.) The two men cried and each one of them said, `I forfeit my right to my brother.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«أَمَا إِذْ قُلْتُمَا فَاذْهَبَا فَاْقَتَسِمَا، ثُمَّ تَوَخَّيَا الْحَقَّ ثُمَّ اسْتَهِمَا، ثُم لِيُحْلِلْ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْكُمَا صَاحِبَه»

(Since you said that, then go and divide the inheritance, and try to be just in your division. Then draw lots, and each one of you should forgive his brother thereafter (regardless of who got the best share).)" Allah's statement,

يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلاَ يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ اللَّهِ

(They may hide (their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (them) from Allah;) chastises the hypocrites because they hide their evil works from the people so that they will not criticize them. Yet, the hypocrites disclose this evil with Allah, Who has perfect watch over their secrets and knows what is in their hearts. This is why Allah said,

وَهُوَ مَعَهُمْ إِذْ يُبَيِّتُونَ مَا لاَ يَرْضَى مِنَ الْقَوْلِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطاً

(for He is with them (by His knowledge), when they plot by night in words that He does not approve. And Allah ever encompasses what they do) threatening and warning them. Allah then said,

هَـأَنْتُمْ هَـؤُلاءِ جَـدَلْتُمْ عَنْهُمْ فِى الْحَيَوةِ الدُّنْيَا

(Lo! You are those who have argued for them in the life of this world,) meaning, suppose these people gain the verdict from the rulers in their favor in this life, since the rulers judge according to what is apparent to them. However, what will their condition be on the Day of Resurrection before Allah, Who knows the secret and what is even more hidden Who will be his advocate on that Day Verily, none will support them that Day. Hence, Allah's statement,

أَمْ مَّن يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكِيلاً

(or who will then be their defender)

The background of these verses

The nine verses (105-113) cited above refer to a particular episode. But, very much in accordance with the characteristic style of the Qur'an, the instructions given in this connection are not peculiar to this episode. They are, rather, a set of basic principles and rules commonly beneficial for all Muslims whether of a given time or of future generations.

Let us go to the event first, then consider the wisdom of related instructions which provide solutions to corresponding problems. The episode centres around the clan of Banu Ubayriq in Madinah. A man from this clan - his name being Bashir as in the narration of Tirmidhi and Hakim, or Tu'mah as in the narration of al-Baghawi and Ibn Jarir - broke into the house of Sayyidna Rifa` ah, the uncle of Sayyidna Qatdah ibn al-Nu` man, and committed a theft.

In the narration of Tirmidhi, it is also mentioned that this man was, in reality, a hypocrite. He used to live in Madinah yet was audacious enough to compose poetic satires insulting the noble Companions and used to publicise these in the name of others while keeping his identity concealed.

As for the actual theft it was committed during the early period of Hijrah when Muslims generally lived under straightened circumstances facing all sorts of need, hunger and deprivation. The common food they ate was bread from barley flour or dates, or wheat flour which was scarce and just not available in Madinah. Once in a while, when it did come from Syria some people would buy it for guests or for some other special need. Thus, Sayyidna Rifa` ah bought some wheat flour for himself, put it in a bag, added some arms on top of it and stashed the bag in a small roomette of the house in all possible safety. But, this man - Ibn Ubayriq, Bashir or Tu'mah - somehow came to know, broke into the house and decamped with the bag. When Sayyidna Rifa` ah discovered the theft in the morning, he went to his nephew, Qatadah and told him about it. Together they went out investigating in the locality. Some people said that they had seen the light of fire coming from the Banu Ubayriq house last night and that probably they were cooking what was stolen. When Banu Ubayriq learnt about their secret being out, they themselves came there and charged that the theft was committed by Labid ibn Sahl. Labid was well-known as a sincere and pious Muslim. When Labid himself came to know about this allegation, he came out of his house, sword in hand, saying: You are blaming me for this theft, now I am not going to put my sword back into the sheath, until the truth of this theft becomes clear.

Quietly, Banu Ubayriq confided to him: Do not worry. Nobody is blaming you. Moreover, this is not the sort of thing you would do. At this point, the narration in al-Baghawi and Ibn Jarir says that Banu Ubayriq charged a Jew with the theft and, very cleverly, made a track of seemingly falling flour from .a slit in the bag, which was their own work, all the way from Rifa` ah's house to the house of the Jew. When the traces of the flour were discovered and word went around, they carried the stolen arms and armours as well to the same Jew and left these with him for safe keeping. Following investigations, they were recovered from his house. The Jew declared on oath that these were given to him by Ibn Ubayriq.

In order to bring the two narrations of Tirmidhi and al-Baghawi into harmony, it can be said that may be Banu Ubayriq had first charged Labid ibn Sahl with the theft, but once they realized that their ruse was not working, they targeted the Jew with the blame. Ulti-mately then, the case now rested between the Jew and Banu Ubayriq.

On the other side, Sayyidna Qatadah and Rifa` ah were overwhelmingly convinced on the basis of circumstantial evidence that this was the work of Banu Ubayriq. Sayyidna Qatadah went to the Holy Prophet ﷺ and told him about the theft and also told him that he strongly suspected Banu Ubayriq. When Banu Ubayriq heard the news, they came to the Holy Prophet ﷺ and complained against Sayyidna Qatadah and Rifa` ah ؓ that they were putting the blame for the theft on them without having any valid legal proof and despite the fact that the stolen property was recovered from the house of the Jew. They appealed to the Holy Prophet ﷺ to restrain Sayyidna Qatadah and Rifa` ah ؓ from blaming them for the theft and if they had to sue anyone, they should sue the Jew.

Things as they appeared on the outside made even the Holy Prophet ﷺ incline towards the probability that the theft was committed by the Jew and that the accusation against Banu Ubayriq was not correct. So much so that, according to the narration of al Baghawi, the Holy Prophet ﷺ had the intention of inflicting the punishment for theft on the Jew and sever his hand.

Matters went worse when Sayyidna Qatadah appeared before the Holy Prophet ﷺ who admonished him by saying that he was accusing a Muslim family of theft without any proof. Sayyidna Qatadah ؓ was grieved about the whole thing and wished that he had not spoken to the Holy Prophet ﷺ about this matter even if he had to bear by the loss of his property. Similarly, when Sayyidna Rifa` ah learnt about what the Holy Prophet ﷺ had said, he too exercised patience and said: (And Allah is the one from whom all help is sought).

Not much time had passed when a whole section of the Qur'an was revealed about this episode through which the reality behind it was shown to the Holy Prophet ﷺ and general instructions covering such cases were given. As the Holy Qur'an exposed the theft committed by Banu Ubayriq and acquitted the Jew. Banu Ubayriq were left with no choice but to return the stolen property to the Holy Prophet ﷺ who had it returned to the owner, Sayyidna Rifa` ah ؓ ، who finally endowed all those arms for use in Jihad. When Banu Ubayriq found their theft exposed, Bashir, the son of Ubayriq ran away from Madinah landing in Makkah where he joined the disbelievers. Consequently, if he had been a hypocrite earlier, he became an acknowledged disbeliever; and, if he was a Muslim earlier, he was an apostate now.

It appears in Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit that the curse of his antagonism to Allah and His Messenger did not allow Bashir ibn Ubayriq to live peacefully even in Makkah. When the woman at whose house he had taken up residence found out about this episode, she threw him out of her house. Thus, loitering on the streets came the day when he broke into somebody else's house. The wall through which he went in collapsed on him and killed him right there.

These are the details of the episode. Let us now give some thought to what has been said in the Qur'an:

After telling the Holy Prophet ﷺ the reality behind the case of theft, in the first verse (105), it was said: Allah has given you the Qur'an through revelations so that you can use the knowledge and insight gifted to you to decide matters accordingly, abstaining from taking sides with traitors, that is, Banu Ubayriq. No doubt, the obvious circumstances and evidences were such that a tilt towards the probability of the Jew having committed the theft was not a sin, yet contrary to the actual fact it was. Therefore, in the second verse (106), the Holy Prophet ﷺ was asked to seek forgiveness from Allah because the station of prophets (علیہم السلام) is very high and Allah does not favour the issuance of even something so insignificant from them.

Living along with others is a need felt by every human being. It is this need that creates the nation or the community. A man has his strength enhanced a thousand times by association with his own community. However, something which initially came into existence as a human need for social cohesion, gradually takes on the status of a social religion. The community or the nation becomes a goal in itself. This leads to the mentality, ‘My community right or wrong. It is my community, whether based on truth or falsehood.’ Thus people consider their own circle as important and that of others as unimportant. It is considered that a man belonging to their own circle, even if he is in the wrong, must be supported, while another associated with a different group or community, though right and justified, receives no support. A group with this mentality can be said to have taken communal expediencies and group bias as the criteria by which to judge right and wrong. On the contrary one should regard God’s command as the standard by which to make judgements. If someone errs, he must be checked without prejudice or favouritism. If someone stands for truth, he must be supported—even though associated with another group. Even in a situation where two persons are involved, one from one’s own group and the other from some other group, matters must be looked into on the basis of truth and untruth, ignoring all other considerations. One should always associate oneself with the truth.