قَٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا۟ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَٰغِرُونَ
<p>Commentary</p><p>Verse 28 appearing earlier referred to Jihad against the Mushirks of Makkah. The present verses talk about Jihad against the People of the Book. In a sense, this is a prelude to the battle of Tabuk that was fought against the People of the Book. In Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, it has been reported from the Qur'an commentator, Mujahid that these verses have been revealed about the battle of Tabuk. Then, there is the reference to ` those who were given the Book.' In Islamic religious terminology, they are referred to as ` ahl al-Kitab' or People of the Book. In its literal sense, it covers every disbelieving group of people who be-lieve in a Scripture but, in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an, this term is used for Jews and Christians only - because, anly these two groups from the People of the Book were well-known in and around Arabia. Therefore, addressing the Mushriks of Arabia, the Holy Qur'an has said:</p><p>أَن تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أُنزِلَ الْكِتَابُ عَلَىٰ طَائِفَتَيْنِ مِن قَبْلِنَا وَإِن كُنَّا عَن دِرَ‌اسَتِهِمْ لَغَافِلِينَ ﴿156﴾</p><p>lest you should say, "The Book was sent down only upon two groups before us, and we were ignorant of what they studied." - 6:156</p><p>As for the injunction of Jihad against the People of the Book given in verse 29, it is really not particular to the People of the Book. The fact is that this very injunction applies to all disbelieving groups - because, the reasons for the injunction to fight mentioned next are common to all disbelievers. If so, the injunction has to be common too. But, the People of the Book were mentioned here particularly to serve a purpose. Since, it was possible that Muslims may hesitate to fight against them on the ground that they too are believers in a certain degree, believers in Torah and Injil, and in Sayyidna Musa and ` Isa (علیہما السلام) may peace be upon them both. So, it was possible that their connection with past prophets and their Books may become a factor in dissuading them from Jihad. Therefore, fighting with them was mentioned particularly.</p><p>There is yet another element of coherence at this place. This particularization of the People of the Book in the verse is also releasing a hint that, in a certain way, these people are deserving of greater punishment. The reasons were simple. They were people with knowledge. They had the knowledge of Torah and Injil. These Scriptures referred to the Last among prophets, Sayyidna Muhammad al-Mustafa ﷺ giving his blessed identity in details. They knew all this, yet elected to reject the truth and went on to mount conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. When they did what they did, their crime became much more serious. That explains why fighting against them was mentioned particularly.</p><p>The injunction to fight spells out four reasons in this verse:</p><p>1. لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ : They do not believe in Allah.</p><p>2. وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌: They do not believe in the Hereafter.</p><p>3. لَا يُحَرِّ‌مُونَ مَا حَرَّ‌مَ اللَّـهُ : They do not take as prohibited what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited.</p><p>4. لَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ : They do not submit to the Faith of Truth.</p><p>This raises a doubt. Is it not that the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians, obviously believe in Allah - and in Hereafter and a Last Day too? Why, then, their faith ('Iman) in these things has been negated? The reason is that mere words of faith are hardly sufficient to prove one's actual belief in it. Not having the kind of faith desirable in the sight of Allah would amount to having no faith at all. Of course, the Jews and Christians did not openly reject the belief in Tauhid, that is, oneness of Allah or pure monotheism. But, as says the next verse, the Jews took Sayyidna ` Uzayr (علیہ السلام) and the Christians took Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) to be the sons of God and thereby assigned to them partnership in His divinity. Therefore, their confession of pure monotheism became ineffectual and any claim to faith, false.</p><p>Similarly, the kind of faith desirable in the Hereafter was something not to be found with the People of the Book. Many of them went by the belief that, on the Last Day (the Qiyamah) there will be no return to life in body forms they had in the mortal world. Instead, it will be a kind of spiritual life. As for Paradise and Hell, they did not consider them to be any particular places. Spirit when happy was Paradise and spirit when gloomy was Hell. Since all this is patently contrary to what Allah says, therefore, even their faith in the Last Day too turns out to be no faith in real terms.</p><p>The third thing - that these people do not take, what Allah has declared to be unlawful, as unlawful - means that they do not believe in the unlawfulness of many things prohibited by Torah or Injil - for example, riba رِبَاء (interest). Similarly, there were many edibles prohibited in Torah and Injil. They just did not consider these unlawful and indulged in them freely.</p><p>This tells us about a religious rule of conduct. According to this rule, taking anything declared unlawful by Allah Ta` ala as lawful is not simply the commitment of a sin, in fact, it is kufr, a flat rejection of the faith itself. Similarly, taking something lawful to be unlawful is also kufr. However, should someone inadvertently fall short in practice while still taking the unlawful as unlawful, then, that would be sin, not kufr.</p><p>Since all wars must end, a limit and end of the action of fighting against those people has also been set forth in this verse where it has been said: حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are humbled).</p><p>Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari’ ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing.</p><p>The reason is that kufr and shirk are rebellion against Allah and Rasul. Killing is the real punishment for it. But, Allah Ta` ala has, in His perfect mercy, reduced their punishment by giving them an option. The option is that, should they agree to live as subjects of the Islamic state under the general Islamic legal framework, they may be allowed to remain there against the payment of a nominal amount of jizyah. Since, they would be living there as citizens of a Muslim state, the protection of their life, property and honor will be the responsibility of the Islamic government and no hindrance will be placed in the observance of their religious duties. The amount thus taken is called jizyah.</p><p>Should jizyah be fixed by mutual conciliation and agreement, there is no prescribed limit imposed by the Shari’ ah. It accepts the amount and thing for which a mutual peace treaty is arrived at - as was done by the Holy Prophet ﷺ with the people of Najran. A peace pact was concluded between him and the whole group of these people. They agreed to give him two thousand hullahs annually. A hullah is a pair of clothes. It could be a waist wrap for the lower part of the body with a top sheet wrap, or a long, loose shirt or cloak. Even the estimated monetary worth of every hullah was pre-determined. The value of each hullah was supposed to be one 'Uqiyah اُوقِیَہ of silver. An 'Uqiyah is equal to approximately 122.472 grams of silver, according to our weights.</p><p>. Awzam-i-Shar’ iyah, Hadrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi</p><p>A similar agreement was reached between Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ and the Christians of Bani Taghlib which stipulated that the jizyah on them be levied at the rate of Islamic Zakah - but, twice the Zakah.</p><p>Furthermore, in the event Muslims conquered a certain land through war, then allowed the properties of its residents to remain under their ownership and possession, and they too agreed to continue living there as law-abiding citizens, a jizyah was levied on them. The rate of jizyah fixed and implemented by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ during the period of his Khilafat was four dirhams from the rich, two dirhams from the middle class and only one dirham from the active poor who earned by working on wages, or by making or vending things. This monthly payment of one dirham was equal to about 3.618 grams of silver or its equivalent amount. According to rules, nothing was to be taken from the very poor, disabled or handicapped. Similarly, nothing was to be taken from women, children, aged people and religious leaders living in seclusion.</p><p>These were small amounts, yet there were instructions from the Holy Prophet ﷺ that no one should be made to pay more than he could afford. If anyone oppressed a non-Muslim, the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself will support that non-Muslim against his oppressor on the day of Qiyamah (Mazhari)</p><p>Reports such as these have led some Muslim jurists to hold the position that there is no particular rate of jizyah payment as fixed by the Shari’ ah. Instead, this has been left for the ruler of the time to deter-mine the appropriate action in terms of existing conditions.</p><p>The comments appearing above also make it clear that jizyah is a compensation for removing the punishment of killing from disbelievers - not a substitute for Islam. Therefore, there is no justification for doubting as to why were they given the permission to keep staying on their policy of aversion from and denial of Islam for a paltry price. The proof is that permission is given to many other people also who live in an Islamic country with the freedom to keep observing the percepts of their religion. Jizyah is not taken from them - for example, women, children, the aged, religious leaders, the disabled and the handicapped. Had jizyah been taken in lieu of Islam, it should have been taken from these as well.</p><p>It should be noted that the paying of jizyah in this verse has been qualified with the words: عَن يَدٍ :'with their own hands.' Here, the first word: عن	(` an: with) denotes cause, and ید (yad: hands) signifies power and subjugation. It means that the payment of this jizyah should not be in the spirit of some voluntary contribution or charity. Instead of that, it has to be in the spirit of recognition and acceptance of Islamic victory and of the willingness to live under it. (As in Ruh al-Ma` ani) As for the later part of the sentence: وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (while they are humbled), it means, according to the explanation given by Imam Shafi` i (رح) that they should subscribe to the common law of Islam and take the responsibility of remaining obedient to it. (Ruh al-Ma` ani and Mazhari)</p><p>Regarding the instruction given in this verse that once these people have agreed to pay jizyah, fighting should be stopped; a little explanation may be useful. According to the majority of Muslim jurists, it includes all disbelievers - whether from the People of the Book or from those other than them. However, the Mushriks of Arabia stand excluded from it for jizyah was not accepted from them.</p>
CommentaryVerse 28 appearing earlier referred to Jihad against the Mushirks of Makkah. The present verses talk about Jihad against the People of the Book. In a sense, this is a prelude to the battle of Tabuk that was fought against the People of the Book. In Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, it has been reported from the Qur'an commentator, Mujahid that these verses have been revealed about the battle of Tabuk. Then, there is the reference to ` those who were given the Book.' In Islamic religious terminology, they are referred to as ` ahl al-Kitab' or People of the Book. In its literal sense, it covers every disbelieving group of people who be-lieve in a Scripture but, in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an, this term is used for Jews and Christians only - because, anly these two groups from the People of the Book were well-known in and around Arabia. Therefore, addressing the Mushriks of Arabia, the Holy Qur'an has said:أَن تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أُنزِلَ الْكِتَابُ عَلَىٰ طَائِفَتَيْنِ مِن قَبْلِنَا وَإِن كُنَّا عَن دِرَ‌اسَتِهِمْ لَغَافِلِينَ ﴿156﴾lest you should say, "The Book was sent down only upon two groups before us, and we were ignorant of what they studied." - 6:156As for the injunction of Jihad against the People of the Book given in verse 29, it is really not particular to the People of the Book. The fact is that this very injunction applies to all disbelieving groups - because, the reasons for the injunction to fight mentioned next are common to all disbelievers. If so, the injunction has to be common too. But, the People of the Book were mentioned here particularly to serve a purpose. Since, it was possible that Muslims may hesitate to fight against them on the ground that they too are believers in a certain degree, believers in Torah and Injil, and in Sayyidna Musa and ` Isa (علیہما السلام) may peace be upon them both. So, it was possible that their connection with past prophets and their Books may become a factor in dissuading them from Jihad. Therefore, fighting with them was mentioned particularly.There is yet another element of coherence at this place. This particularization of the People of the Book in the verse is also releasing a hint that, in a certain way, these people are deserving of greater punishment. The reasons were simple. They were people with knowledge. They had the knowledge of Torah and Injil. These Scriptures referred to the Last among prophets, Sayyidna Muhammad al-Mustafa ﷺ giving his blessed identity in details. They knew all this, yet elected to reject the truth and went on to mount conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. When they did what they did, their crime became much more serious. That explains why fighting against them was mentioned particularly.The injunction to fight spells out four reasons in this verse:1. لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّـهِ : They do not believe in Allah.2. وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌: They do not believe in the Hereafter.3. لَا يُحَرِّ‌مُونَ مَا حَرَّ‌مَ اللَّـهُ : They do not take as prohibited what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited.4. لَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ : They do not submit to the Faith of Truth.This raises a doubt. Is it not that the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and Christians, obviously believe in Allah - and in Hereafter and a Last Day too? Why, then, their faith ('Iman) in these things has been negated? The reason is that mere words of faith are hardly sufficient to prove one's actual belief in it. Not having the kind of faith desirable in the sight of Allah would amount to having no faith at all. Of course, the Jews and Christians did not openly reject the belief in Tauhid, that is, oneness of Allah or pure monotheism. But, as says the next verse, the Jews took Sayyidna ` Uzayr (علیہ السلام) and the Christians took Sayyidna ` Isa (علیہ السلام) to be the sons of God and thereby assigned to them partnership in His divinity. Therefore, their confession of pure monotheism became ineffectual and any claim to faith, false.Similarly, the kind of faith desirable in the Hereafter was something not to be found with the People of the Book. Many of them went by the belief that, on the Last Day (the Qiyamah) there will be no return to life in body forms they had in the mortal world. Instead, it will be a kind of spiritual life. As for Paradise and Hell, they did not consider them to be any particular places. Spirit when happy was Paradise and spirit when gloomy was Hell. Since all this is patently contrary to what Allah says, therefore, even their faith in the Last Day too turns out to be no faith in real terms.The third thing - that these people do not take, what Allah has declared to be unlawful, as unlawful - means that they do not believe in the unlawfulness of many things prohibited by Torah or Injil - for example, riba رِبَاء (interest). Similarly, there were many edibles prohibited in Torah and Injil. They just did not consider these unlawful and indulged in them freely.This tells us about a religious rule of conduct. According to this rule, taking anything declared unlawful by Allah Ta` ala as lawful is not simply the commitment of a sin, in fact, it is kufr, a flat rejection of the faith itself. Similarly, taking something lawful to be unlawful is also kufr. However, should someone inadvertently fall short in practice while still taking the unlawful as unlawful, then, that would be sin, not kufr.Since all wars must end, a limit and end of the action of fighting against those people has also been set forth in this verse where it has been said: حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are humbled).Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. In the terminology of the Shari’ ah, it refers to the amount of money taken from disbelievers in lieu of killing.The reason is that kufr and shirk are rebellion against Allah and Rasul. Killing is the real punishment for it. But, Allah Ta` ala has, in His perfect mercy, reduced their punishment by giving them an option. The option is that, should they agree to live as subjects of the Islamic state under the general Islamic legal framework, they may be allowed to remain there against the payment of a nominal amount of jizyah. Since, they would be living there as citizens of a Muslim state, the protection of their life, property and honor will be the responsibility of the Islamic government and no hindrance will be placed in the observance of their religious duties. The amount thus taken is called jizyah.Should jizyah be fixed by mutual conciliation and agreement, there is no prescribed limit imposed by the Shari’ ah. It accepts the amount and thing for which a mutual peace treaty is arrived at - as was done by the Holy Prophet ﷺ with the people of Najran. A peace pact was concluded between him and the whole group of these people. They agreed to give him two thousand hullahs annually. A hullah is a pair of clothes. It could be a waist wrap for the lower part of the body with a top sheet wrap, or a long, loose shirt or cloak. Even the estimated monetary worth of every hullah was pre-determined. The value of each hullah was supposed to be one 'Uqiyah اُوقِیَہ of silver. An 'Uqiyah is equal to approximately 122.472 grams of silver, according to our weights.. Awzam-i-Shar’ iyah, Hadrat Maulana Mufti Muhammad ShafiA similar agreement was reached between Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ and the Christians of Bani Taghlib which stipulated that the jizyah on them be levied at the rate of Islamic Zakah - but, twice the Zakah.Furthermore, in the event Muslims conquered a certain land through war, then allowed the properties of its residents to remain under their ownership and possession, and they too agreed to continue living there as law-abiding citizens, a jizyah was levied on them. The rate of jizyah fixed and implemented by Sayyidna ` Umar ؓ during the period of his Khilafat was four dirhams from the rich, two dirhams from the middle class and only one dirham from the active poor who earned by working on wages, or by making or vending things. This monthly payment of one dirham was equal to about 3.618 grams of silver or its equivalent amount. According to rules, nothing was to be taken from the very poor, disabled or handicapped. Similarly, nothing was to be taken from women, children, aged people and religious leaders living in seclusion.These were small amounts, yet there were instructions from the Holy Prophet ﷺ that no one should be made to pay more than he could afford. If anyone oppressed a non-Muslim, the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself will support that non-Muslim against his oppressor on the day of Qiyamah (Mazhari)Reports such as these have led some Muslim jurists to hold the position that there is no particular rate of jizyah payment as fixed by the Shari’ ah. Instead, this has been left for the ruler of the time to deter-mine the appropriate action in terms of existing conditions.The comments appearing above also make it clear that jizyah is a compensation for removing the punishment of killing from disbelievers - not a substitute for Islam. Therefore, there is no justification for doubting as to why were they given the permission to keep staying on their policy of aversion from and denial of Islam for a paltry price. The proof is that permission is given to many other people also who live in an Islamic country with the freedom to keep observing the percepts of their religion. Jizyah is not taken from them - for example, women, children, the aged, religious leaders, the disabled and the handicapped. Had jizyah been taken in lieu of Islam, it should have been taken from these as well.It should be noted that the paying of jizyah in this verse has been qualified with the words: عَن يَدٍ :'with their own hands.' Here, the first word: عن	(` an: with) denotes cause, and ید (yad: hands) signifies power and subjugation. It means that the payment of this jizyah should not be in the spirit of some voluntary contribution or charity. Instead of that, it has to be in the spirit of recognition and acceptance of Islamic victory and of the willingness to live under it. (As in Ruh al-Ma` ani) As for the later part of the sentence: وَهُمْ صَاغِرُ‌ونَ (while they are humbled), it means, according to the explanation given by Imam Shafi` i (رح) that they should subscribe to the common law of Islam and take the responsibility of remaining obedient to it. (Ruh al-Ma` ani and Mazhari)Regarding the instruction given in this verse that once these people have agreed to pay jizyah, fighting should be stopped; a little explanation may be useful. According to the majority of Muslim jurists, it includes all disbelievers - whether from the People of the Book or from those other than them. However, the Mushriks of Arabia stand excluded from it for jizyah was not accepted from them.