Overview (Verse 7)

No Peace Possible

This is, then, an outline of the final rulings that determine the relations between the Muslim community and the remaining idolaters in Arabia. They mean an end to the state based on peace agreements with all idolaters, after four months in some cases and at the end of their specified terms in others. The eventual outcome of these rulings is that there will only be one of two situations: either repentance, mending of ways, attending to prayers and payment of zakāt, which in essence means the acceptance of Islam, or fighting idolaters, taking them captive and chasing them out of their hiding places. This termination of the state of peace based on treaties and agreements is followed by a rhetorical question stating that it is just not possible that idolaters should have such covenants with God and His Messenger. The very principle of having such agreements is rejected outright: “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7) This outright denunciation, coming as it does in the verses that follow the opening ones, may be understood to abrogate the first rulings which allowed the continued observance of treaties with those who fulfilled their obligations under those rulings and did not provide any assistance to any group hostile to the Muslim community. In order to dispel any such misunderstanding, the ruling is restated once more: “Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing.” (Verse 7)
 
This restatement adds a new provision. The first instruction required the Muslims to honour their obligations to those who had shown their true commitment to their peace agreements and fulfilled their own obligations under such agreements. Now the instruction to keep faith with them is qualified, making it clear that the Muslims were to honour their obligations to them for as long as they themselves continued to observe their treaties in full, as they did in the past. Here we note the careful phraseology of texts relating to dealings, transactions and relations with others. Implicit understanding is not sufficient. It is followed by a clear statement.
 
Considering the different aspects that prevailed in the Muslim community at the time and the way this decisive step was likely to be received by the Muslim community, the sūrah reminds the Muslims of the true nature of the idolaters, their feelings, intentions and attitudes towards the Muslims. We are told by God Himself that the idolaters will never respect an agreement or honour an obligation or observe a moral value or a tradition once they are sure they can get away with such treachery. Hence, they cannot be trusted to honour their obligations. The only way is for them to accept Islam and show their commitment to it.

“How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7) The idolaters do not submit themselves truly to God, nor do they acknowledge His Messenger or the message he conveys to them. How could they, then, have a treaty with God and His Messenger? They do not simply deny a creature like themselves, or a constitution devised by human beings. Rather, they deny the One who has created them and continues to provide them with sustenance to preserve their lives. By so doing they place themselves in opposition to God and His Messenger. How is it conceivable, then, that they should have a treaty with them? The rhetorical question posed by the sūrah addresses the very principle of having such a treaty. It is not concerned with any particular application of the principle.
 
It may be said here that some of the idolaters had such treaties and God ordered that some of these treaties must be honoured. There were also treaties concluded after the establishment of the Muslim state in Madinah, some of which were with the idolaters and some with the Jews. Moreover, the peace agreement of al-Ĥudaybiyah was signed in the sixth year of the Islamic calendar. Earlier sūrahs included verses that clearly permitted such treaties, although they also permitted the termination of such treaties in case of surmised or actual treachery. So if it is the very principle of having agreements that is condemned here, how was it possible that such treaties were permitted and concluded?
 
Such an argument does not stand when we understand the nature of the Islamic method of operation, which we discussed in the introductions to this sūrah and the preceding one, The Spoils of War. These treaties dealt with existing situations with adequate means. The final ruling, however, is that the idolaters should not have any treaty with God and His Messenger. These treaties were made under provisional rulings. Otherwise, the ultimate goal of the movement which aims to establish Islam is that there should not be any idolatry on the face of the earth. All submission must be to God alone. Islam has declared this ultimate goal from the very first day, deceiving no one. The prevailing circumstances in a certain period made it necessary to conclude a peace agreement with those who wanted peace so that it could deal with those hostile forces trying to suppress its message. Islam does not lose sight of its ultimate goal. It does not overlook the fact that the idolaters themselves looked at those agreements as only temporary. They were bound to launch new aggressions against the Muslim community. They would not leave the Muslims alone when they were aware of the aim of Islam. They would not remain at peace with the Muslim community for long when they had completed their preparations for a new confrontation. God said to the believers right at the beginning: “They shall not cease to fight you until they force you to renounce your faith, if they can.” (2: 217) This continues to be their attitude at all times. The verse describes a permanent situation, not one that applies in certain circumstances.
 
Although the principle itself is denounced, God has permitted the honouring of treaties with those who continued to honour their obligations. He only made the proviso that this should be reciprocated, which means that treaties were to be honoured by the Muslims as long as the idolaters continued to honour them: “Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God- fearing.” (Verse 7)
 
Unlike what some contemporary commentators have understood, those people who had a treaty signed at the Sacred Mosque were the same group as they to whom reference was made earlier in the sūrah: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations (under the treaty) in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4) The two verses refer to the same group. However, the first reference makes an exception in their case as opposed to all those whose treaties are terminated. They are mentioned again in verse 7, in connection with the denunciation of the principle of making peace agreements with idolaters. Their second mention is necessary to make it clear that there is no abrogation of the first ruling in their favour. The righteous and the God- fearing are mentioned on both occasions, using the same Arabic word for both, and highlighting the fact that God loves those who are righteous and God-fearing, to indicate that the subject matter is the same. The second statement completes the conditions stated earlier. In the first, their past attitude of honouring their obligations is mentioned, and in the second the condition of their continued observance of these obligations is made clear. The careful phraseology requires that both statements are taken together to grasp the meaning in full.
 
The principle of making peace with the idolaters is then denounced on historical and practical grounds, after it had been denounced on grounds of faith. Both sets of reasons are grouped together in the verses that follow: “How (else could it be) when, should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you? They try to please you with what they say, while at heart they remain adamantly hostile. Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do.

Overview (Verse 7)

No Peace Possible

This is, then, an outline of the final rulings that determine the relations between the Muslim community and the remaining idolaters in Arabia. They mean an end to the state based on peace agreements with all idolaters, after four months in some cases and at the end of their specified terms in others. The eventual outcome of these rulings is that there will only be one of two situations: either repentance, mending of ways, attending to prayers and payment of zakāt, which in essence means the acceptance of Islam, or fighting idolaters, taking them captive and chasing them out of their hiding places. This termination of the state of peace based on treaties and agreements is followed by a rhetorical question stating that it is just not possible that idolaters should have such covenants with God and His Messenger. The very principle of having such agreements is rejected outright: “How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7) This outright denunciation, coming as it does in the verses that follow the opening ones, may be understood to abrogate the first rulings which allowed the continued observance of treaties with those who fulfilled their obligations under those rulings and did not provide any assistance to any group hostile to the Muslim community. In order to dispel any such misunderstanding, the ruling is restated once more: “Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God-fearing.” (Verse 7)
 
This restatement adds a new provision. The first instruction required the Muslims to honour their obligations to those who had shown their true commitment to their peace agreements and fulfilled their own obligations under such agreements. Now the instruction to keep faith with them is qualified, making it clear that the Muslims were to honour their obligations to them for as long as they themselves continued to observe their treaties in full, as they did in the past. Here we note the careful phraseology of texts relating to dealings, transactions and relations with others. Implicit understanding is not sufficient. It is followed by a clear statement.
 
Considering the different aspects that prevailed in the Muslim community at the time and the way this decisive step was likely to be received by the Muslim community, the sūrah reminds the Muslims of the true nature of the idolaters, their feelings, intentions and attitudes towards the Muslims. We are told by God Himself that the idolaters will never respect an agreement or honour an obligation or observe a moral value or a tradition once they are sure they can get away with such treachery. Hence, they cannot be trusted to honour their obligations. The only way is for them to accept Islam and show their commitment to it.

“How can there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for the idolaters?” (Verse 7) The idolaters do not submit themselves truly to God, nor do they acknowledge His Messenger or the message he conveys to them. How could they, then, have a treaty with God and His Messenger? They do not simply deny a creature like themselves, or a constitution devised by human beings. Rather, they deny the One who has created them and continues to provide them with sustenance to preserve their lives. By so doing they place themselves in opposition to God and His Messenger. How is it conceivable, then, that they should have a treaty with them? The rhetorical question posed by the sūrah addresses the very principle of having such a treaty. It is not concerned with any particular application of the principle.
 
It may be said here that some of the idolaters had such treaties and God ordered that some of these treaties must be honoured. There were also treaties concluded after the establishment of the Muslim state in Madinah, some of which were with the idolaters and some with the Jews. Moreover, the peace agreement of al-Ĥudaybiyah was signed in the sixth year of the Islamic calendar. Earlier sūrahs included verses that clearly permitted such treaties, although they also permitted the termination of such treaties in case of surmised or actual treachery. So if it is the very principle of having agreements that is condemned here, how was it possible that such treaties were permitted and concluded?
 
Such an argument does not stand when we understand the nature of the Islamic method of operation, which we discussed in the introductions to this sūrah and the preceding one, The Spoils of War. These treaties dealt with existing situations with adequate means. The final ruling, however, is that the idolaters should not have any treaty with God and His Messenger. These treaties were made under provisional rulings. Otherwise, the ultimate goal of the movement which aims to establish Islam is that there should not be any idolatry on the face of the earth. All submission must be to God alone. Islam has declared this ultimate goal from the very first day, deceiving no one. The prevailing circumstances in a certain period made it necessary to conclude a peace agreement with those who wanted peace so that it could deal with those hostile forces trying to suppress its message. Islam does not lose sight of its ultimate goal. It does not overlook the fact that the idolaters themselves looked at those agreements as only temporary. They were bound to launch new aggressions against the Muslim community. They would not leave the Muslims alone when they were aware of the aim of Islam. They would not remain at peace with the Muslim community for long when they had completed their preparations for a new confrontation. God said to the believers right at the beginning: “They shall not cease to fight you until they force you to renounce your faith, if they can.” (2: 217) This continues to be their attitude at all times. The verse describes a permanent situation, not one that applies in certain circumstances.
 
Although the principle itself is denounced, God has permitted the honouring of treaties with those who continued to honour their obligations. He only made the proviso that this should be reciprocated, which means that treaties were to be honoured by the Muslims as long as the idolaters continued to honour them: “Unless it be those of them with whom you have made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them; for God loves those who are God- fearing.” (Verse 7)
 
Unlike what some contemporary commentators have understood, those people who had a treaty signed at the Sacred Mosque were the same group as they to whom reference was made earlier in the sūrah: “Except for those idolaters with whom you have made a treaty and who have honoured their obligations (under the treaty) in every detail, and have not aided anyone against you. To these fulfil your obligations until their treaties have run their term. God loves those who are righteous.” (Verse 4) The two verses refer to the same group. However, the first reference makes an exception in their case as opposed to all those whose treaties are terminated. They are mentioned again in verse 7, in connection with the denunciation of the principle of making peace agreements with idolaters. Their second mention is necessary to make it clear that there is no abrogation of the first ruling in their favour. The righteous and the God- fearing are mentioned on both occasions, using the same Arabic word for both, and highlighting the fact that God loves those who are righteous and God-fearing, to indicate that the subject matter is the same. The second statement completes the conditions stated earlier. In the first, their past attitude of honouring their obligations is mentioned, and in the second the condition of their continued observance of these obligations is made clear. The careful phraseology requires that both statements are taken together to grasp the meaning in full.
 
The principle of making peace with the idolaters is then denounced on historical and practical grounds, after it had been denounced on grounds of faith. Both sets of reasons are grouped together in the verses that follow: “How (else could it be) when, should they prevail over you, they will respect neither agreement made with you, nor obligation of honour towards you? They try to please you with what they say, while at heart they remain adamantly hostile. Most of them are transgressors. They barter away God’s revelations for a paltry price and debar others from His path. Evil indeed is what they do.