Surah an-Nisa' (Women ) 4 : 88

Overview (Verse 88)

Dealing with Hypocrites
 
The next verse criticises the Muslim community’s hesitation to adopt a firm attitude towards the hypocrites. The Muslim community was apparently in two minds, leading to some controversy with regard to its relationship with a group of hypocrites from outside Madinah. The criticism makes it clear that Islam only accepts a firm attitude in such matters. It allows for no hesitation in the Muslim community’s approach to such a problem. Such hesitation means accepting the pretence they offer. This can only be done if it is based on a clearly defined plan of action.
 
How could you be divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, when God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt? Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray? For him whom God lets go astray you can never find any way. (Verse 88)
 
We have two reports to indicate which group of hypocrites is meant in this Qur’ānic verse. The first, related by Imām Aĥmad, quotes Zayd ibn Thābit, a Companion of the Prophet, who says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) went out to Uĥud [with an army]. Some of those who went with him, however, decided to go back. His Companions were divided on how to deal with these retractors. One group said that they must be killed. Another group objected, saying that they were believers. Then this Qur’ānic verse was revealed raising the question that the Muslims should adopt a unified attitude. The Prophet said: “This city is Ţaibah [another name for Madinah meaning that it is a good and virtuous city]. It throws away evil as a smelter throws away foreign elements in iron.” (Related by al-Bukhārī and Muslim.)
 
The other report quotes Ibn `Abbās as saying that this Qur’ānic verse speaks about certain people who indicated that they were Muslims while, at the same time, they supported the unbelievers. Once, when they went on a mission away from Makkah, they said that they were safe, should they encounter the Prophet’s Companions. When the latter were told of their departure from Makkah, some of them suggested that they should “mount an expedition to meet those cowards and kill them, because they supported your enemies”. Another group of believers said: “How can you kill people who have made the same declaration of faith which you have made? Is it because they have not migrated to Madinah that their killing and the confiscation of their property can be sanctioned?” Both groups maintained their attitudes, and the Prophet expressed no disapproval of either. Hence, why this Qur’ānic verse was revealed.
 
Although the first report appears to be more authentic from the point of view of its chain of transmitters and its inclusion in the most authentic collections of aĥādīth, the events mentioned in the second report appear to be more correct, considering historical events. We know for certain that no directive to fight against the hypocrites in Madinah was given to the Muslims. The Prophet never fought against them and never ordered their killing. Instead, there was a totally different plan for dealing with them, one which tolerated them until they were naturally cast away. Their support was weakened with the expulsion of the Jews, who used to encourage them. The Jews were forced out of Madinah before they were eventually evacuated from the whole of Arabia.
 
It may be said that the directive to take them prisoner and to kill them is made conditional on their migration to Madinah which is provided for in the following verse. It is, then, a warning issued to them to desist from their practices. They might have heeded this warning and the Prophet, therefore, would have had no reason to carry out this order. The condition, however, that this threat applies until “they have migrated”, makes it absolutely clear that they were not of the people of Madinah. Their migration to Madinah was, in fact, required, because this whole episode took place before the conquest of Makkah. During that period migration meant to move out of the land of unfaith into the land of faith, i.e. Madinah, to join the Muslim community and implement Islamic law. Otherwise, the identity of those who did not migrate while claiming to be Muslims was questionable. Later in the sūrah we have a strong denunciation of the attitude of those few Muslims who remained in Makkah despite their ability to migrate to Madinah, even though they were citizens of Makkah. All this serves to support the second report, describing those hypocrites as a group of the people of Makkah or its surrounding area who claimed to be Muslims while at the same time supporting the Muslims’ enemies.
 
This strong denunciation of the believers’ hesitant attitude towards those people is expressed in a rhetorical question: “How could you be divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, when God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt? Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray?” (Verse 88) This question emphasises that it is dangerous for the Muslim community to hesitate when faced with hypocrisy, because it points to a lack of clarity with respect to the true nature of this religion. One group of believers could not imagine how the hypocrites could be killed when they had made verbal statements claiming to be Muslims. Yet those very people were aware that they did not belong to the Muslim community. This is clear in their statement: “We need fear nothing from Muĥammad’s companions.” This is also made clear by the other group of believers who stated that those hypocrites “support your enemies”. The fact is that regardless of any verbal claim to belong to Islam, their practical support of the Muslims’ enemies proves their hypocrisy beyond any doubt. Hence, there is no room for tolerance or overlooking such an attitude. Tolerance here is a weakness threatening the Muslim community. Hence, it is strongly denounced in the Qur’ān.
 
The same is not the case with the hypocrites of Madinah. The believers there were clear about their hypocrisy. There was, however, a well-known plan to tolerate them and accept their claims for the time being. The difference in the two cases is that in the one referred to in this verse, some Muslims advocated tolerance towards people living away from Madinah simply because they claimed verbally to be Muslims while at the same time practically supported the enemies of Islam. Hence, God’s view of those people is stated clearly: “When God Himself has cast them off because of their guilt.” (Verse 88) When God adopts a certain attitude there is no way a Muslim can adopt a different one. God has cast them off because of their wickedness and bad intentions.
 
This is followed by another reproach: “Do you seek to guide those whom God has let go astray?” (Verse 88) This probably suggests that the group of Muslims who advocated tolerance might have suggested that if the Muslims were to give those people a chance they might eventually overcome their reluctance in accepting Islam. God tells the believers that since these people merited His punishment, theirs was a hopeless case.
 
God allows to go astray only those who choose to do so. This means that when people actually do go astray, God allows them to go further away from the right path. He lets them continue their erring ways, moving further and further away from Divine guidance. It is they who have chosen error in preference to Divine guidance and they have done this consciously after being fully aware of the course of action acceptable to God.