بِسمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ
لَم يَكُنِ الَّذينَ كَفَروا مِن أَهلِ الكِتابِ وَالمُشرِكينَ مُنفَكّينَ حَتّىٰ تَأتِيَهُمُ البَيِّنَةُ
The faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not set apart until the proof had come to them.
EXEGESIS
Munfakkīn (set apart) is the form seven plural active participle from the root fakka, meaning to be freed from bindings. Hence, when used in conjunction with raqabah, it intends to free a slave, like in the verse, the freeing of (fakk) a slave (raqabah) (90:13). The form seven infakka means to separate after being firmly attached to one another.
It can also be used in the negative as mā infakka, similar to ma zāla (it has not ceased), to imply continuity, like mā infakka min hādhā al-amr (he has not detached himself from this issue). Although when used like this it should usually be accompanied by a verb, such as saying mā infakaktu adhkuruka (I have not stopped remembering you).
Al-bayyinah (the proof) comes from the root of bāna, meaning to become clear and distinguished after being unclear and vague. In a legal context, bayyinah is used to refer to evidence produced by the claimant or the testimony of a just witness. Here it means the clear evidence that is brought by the prophets of God, which acts as proof for mankind of their duty towards their Creator.
EXPOSITION
This verse is among the most disputed in the Quran, both in its structure and interpretation. The central dispute about the verse and indeed perhaps the whole surah, is what exactly is meant by munfakkīn (set apart)?
The verse implies that those who disbelieved were not to desist until the proof (bayyinah) came to them, which is the Messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (s), as explained in the next verse. However, the verse does not explicitly mention what they desisted from, which is a matter of disagreement among the exegetes.
Many commentators, including Rāzī, have argued that what they would not desist from was the disbelief in which they persisted. Thus, the sense of the verse becomes: Those who disbelieved did not desist from their unbelief (munfakkīn ʿan kufrihim) until the proof came to them, which is the Messenger. However, since the particle ḥattā (until) denotes the end of a limit, it would mean they became detached from their unbelief at the coming of the Messenger. Yet afterward, verse 4 states: And those who were given the book did not divide, except after the proof had come to them. This indicates the contrary, that their disbelief actually increased at the coming of Prophet Muhammad (s). Hence there appears to be a contradiction between verse 1 and verse 4.
However, a closer examination of the two verses reveals that there is no contradiction, and they are, in fact, consistent, as explained by the author of al‑Kashshāf. He explains that the disbelievers of both groups – the People of the Book and the idol‑worshippers – used to say before the mission of Prophet Muhammad (s): ‘We will not part from our religion, nor abandon what we follow, until the promised prophet is sent.’ Thus God quoted what they were claiming in the first verse, but explains in verse 4 what actually happened, those who were given the book did not divide, except after the proof had come to them, meaning that they had expected unity and agreement upon truth when the Messenger should come, but in fact nothing separated them from the truth nor confirmed them in unbelief except the coming of the Messenger. In other words, what happened transpired to be completely opposite to what they had claimed.
An analogous situation in ordinary life would be when a sinful poor man says to one who admonishes him: ‘I will not refrain from these evil deeds until God grants me wealth.’ Then when God enriches him, he becomes even more depraved. The admonisher therefore says to him: ‘You were not holding back from sin until you became wealthy, and you did not plunge headlong into sin except after you gained prosperity,’ recalling what he himself used to say, by way of reproach and condemnation.
Put differently, the statement The faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not set apart until the proof had come to them is quoted in the verse as a report of their own claim, whereas the statement And those who were given the book did not divide, except after the proof had come to them is a report of what actually happened, meaning that what occurred in reality was contrary to what they had claimed.
The phrase until the proof had come to them (ḥattā taʾtiyahum al‑bayyinah) retains its straightforward, forward‑looking sense. The bayyinah signifies the manifest evidence, and the meaning of the verse is that those who disbelieved in the Prophet’s message, or in his call, or in the Quran, would not withdraw from disbelief until the proof came to them; and that proof is Muhammad (s).
Tabatabai, however, gives a diametrically different yet deeply insightful interpretation of the verse. According to him, The faithless in the verse refers to those among both the People of the Book and the polytheists who denied the prophetic call of Islam. The particle min in the phrase min ahl al‑kitāb is partitive rather than explicative; it indicates that only some of the People of the Book are meant. The same applies to al‑mushrikīn which is conjoined to ahl al‑kitāb, and denotes those other than the People of the Book, namely the idol‑worshippers and their like. In other words, the verse means: Those who are faithless from among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not set apart.
The word munfakkīn describes the act of separating from something that has a tight grip on you. In this context, that ‘grip’ was God’s commitment to guide humanity. It is as if the divine law of guidance refused to let go of these people to leave them wandering in the dark, until they were shown the clear truth. They could not be ‘separated’ (released from this divine attention) until the proof was established. Once the proof came, the obligation was met, and they were left to determine their own path; Allah would not cause a people to go astray after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what they should avoid (9:115).
There is another slightly different way to understand munfakkīn though. This view entails understanding that the surah actually begins by explaining the role of God’s proof vis-à-vis the matter of faith and disbelief, and how the People of the Book and the polytheists separated themselves into disbelief (kufr) by rejecting the divine proof. In other words, the infikāk, or going apart, of the People of the Book and polytheists is related to their rejection (kufr) with regards to the proof delivered to them by God. Indeed, a person’s status of disbelief or faith is determined by how they receive and react to the divine message. Munfakkīn in this verse should then be understood as munfakkīn ʿan al-najāh (becoming separated from salvation), i.e., those who had separated themselves from the hope of divine mercy and distanced themselves from His guidance by rejecting the divine proof, and they would not and could not have separated until that proof had been delivered to them. This is effectively quite similar to what Tabatabai has said.
On a different level, the verse is a reminder that we should not expect anyone to change their faith or religion and accept Islam without first being provided evidence and proof. The verse is also meant to comfort Prophet Muhammad (s), that the people who turn away from his call to Islam were not doing so because they were not sufficiently informed, but rather they did so despite being informed.
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
A popular opinion regarding the meaning of munfakkīn in this verse is that it means munfakkīn fī amri muḥammad, meaning they did not disagree regarding Prophet Muhammad (s). Both the People of the Book and the polytheists claimed that they would remain on their faith until a prophet came to them, and that when he came they would follow him. However, when Prophet Muhammad (s) did come, they rejected him and abandoned their previous position, even though the People of the Book knew his descriptions and the truth of his message. And when there came to them a book from Allah, confirming that which is with them – and earlier they would pray for victory over the pagans – so when there came to them what they recognised, they defied it. So may the curse of Allah be on the faithless! (2:89).
Similarly, the polytheists of Mecca knew full well his good character and did not begin disparaging him until he declared his prophethood.
Some have said that munfakkīn intends munfakkīn ʿan al-dunyā, meaning they would not leave this world before the proof of God would come to them, but this is a very farfetched interpretation.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
- ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.’
- ‘What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.’
- ‘It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.’
TOPICAL ARTICLES
Faith, Disbelief, and Bayyinah
In order to understand this verse better, there are a few things that we must mention as a prelude.
It is reported in a hadith from Imam al-Bāqir (a) that he said: ‘God will be exacting in His accounting of men on the Day of Judgement according to the intellectual capacity that He granted them in this world.’ This reality is obvious: God will not take to task a child like an adult, or an insane man like a sane one. One who had the intellectual potential and the opportunity to learn about religion and God has more responsibility than the one who did not have such opportunities. Every person is taken to account in accordance with what he has been given, Allah does not task any soul except [according to] what He has given it (65:7).
The report – like many other reports – is also a clear indication that human intellect has evidential value (ḥujjiyyah). We are taken to task by God based on what we know and understand. The Quran constantly reminds us of this reality, asking, Do you not apply reason? (2:44), and declaring, Thus does Allah clarify His signs for you so that you may reflect (2:266). The healthy intellect is capable of understanding many moral, ethical, and religious truths, and acts as a guide for man towards those.
In addition to intellect, man has been given a pure innate nature (fiṭrah) that draws him towards God and worship, towards righteousness and altruism, and makes him pursue questions about his Creator, the meaning of life, the purpose of his existence, and the pure religion of God, So set your heart on the religion as a people of pure faith (ḥanīf), the origination (fiṭrah) of Allah according to which He originated mankind (30:30).
However, the human intellect and the pure fiṭrah are not sufficient for man’s guidance. Through these alone man cannot discover all the moral and ethical truths and all of his duties with regards to God, nor the realities of the hereafter such as judgement, heaven and hell, and the world of the unseen. The human intellect cannot for example discover that a person should fast for a full lunar month during Ramadan, avoiding eating and drinking and other things from dawn till sunset. It can understand that this is a laudable and good action once it has been informed of that duty, but it cannot discover this specific duty on its own. In order to make man’s duty clear and to complete the ḥujjah for him, God must inform him of all such things. The Almighty does this by selecting messengers who will deliver this clear proof (bayyinah), as explained in the next verse.
Because the completion of ḥujjah requires the completion of bayyinah, full duty is not imposed before the bayyinah has been delivered. So it is that God declares, We do not punish [any community] until We have sent [it] an apostle (17:15). Those who have not received such a bayyinah will be duty-bound towards God and morality only to the extent to which the intellect and fiṭrah with which they have been endowed has allowed them to discover. We cannot imagine that God should ask a person who had never received the message of Islam nor been informed of his duty why he had not, for example, fasted in Ramadan.
Another important point to keep in mind is that the categorisation of people in Quranic theology is not purely binary. Indeed the Quran tells us of how other religions can also find salvation on the Day of Judgement: Indeed the faithful, the Jews, the Sabaeans, and the Christians – those who have faith in Allah and the Last Day and act righteously – they will have no fear, nor will they grieve (5:69). The Jews, Sabaeans, and Christians referred to in the verse cannot be considered to mean those who followed the true religion of Prophet Moses (a), Prophet Noah (a), or Prophet Jesus (a), as such people would be termed muslim. Clearly then, all the People of the Book should not be considered kāfir in the true sense of the word, as kāfir actually means someone who has rejected the bayyinah that has come to them. Yes, anyone who has not embraced Islam may technically be termed kāfir, however if such a person has not received the bayyinah of Islam, they do not fulfil its true requirement. Hence, such individuals – especially those of them that nevertheless believe in God and the hereafter – are safe from divine wrath on the Day of Judgement and will not need fear or grieve. In addition to the People of the Book, this should also include other peoples and generations who had not received any divine message and thus would be included in the scope of 17:15, for we cannot imagine that God would take them to task for what they had not been informed about. For them, the duty towards God as we explained would only be in proportion to their fiṭrah and intellect.
So it is possible to understand that the preposition min (from) in this verse is for tabʿīḍ (from among), meaning that the Quran is referring here to a group from amongst the People of the Book and the polytheists. In other words, only those from amongst the People of the Book and polytheists who had received and then rejected the divine bayyinah can be considered kuffār.
If we were to draw a Venn diagram of this verse it would consist of three circles representing three groups: the People of the Book, the polytheists (mushrikīn), and the kuffār. Each circle would be distinct, yet each would overlap the other and all three would overlap in the middle. This means that not every Christian or Jew is a kāfir (in its true sense, i.e. rejection), nor a polytheist, but some of them are. Nor is every mushrik necessarily a kāfir (again in its true sense), though some of them are. And some kuffār are neither from the People of the Book nor from the mushrikīn, though some are. There are some who are all three, meaning some from the People of the Book are both mushrikīn and kuffār.
Ibn ʿAṭiyyah proposes an interpretation that hints at a very similar understanding for the verse, saying it means munfakkīn ʿan amr allāh, explaining that: ‘They would not have separated from the decree of God and His authority and His gaze, until He sent to them a prophet warning them and presenting them with clear evidence and making complete the blessing of God on the faithful. It is as if He is saying: “They have not been abandoned to futility (75:36),” and there are many other examples of this in His book.’
An important question that remains is what constitutes a bayyinah? The next verse gives us the most prominent example of what constitutes bayyinah, namely Prophet Muhammad (s). Any other prophet of God or infallible Imam can similarly be considered a bayyinah. This does not mean that the bayyinah of God cannot be established for those not blessed with meeting such a holy exemplar of God. The prophets themselves never met every single individual in their nation, rather they delivered the message at the heart of that civilisation, from whence it would spread to others – Your Lord would not destroy the towns until He had raised an apostle in their mother city to recite to them Our signs (28:59). Once that message had been sufficiently received and people were given the opportunity to understand it, they could either accept or reject it.
The Quran however emphasises repeatedly that delivery of this divine message must occur in a complete manner, or what is deemed in Arabic as balāgh: But if they turn their backs [on you], your duty is only to communicate (balāgh) in clear terms (16:82); The Apostle’s duty is only to communicate (balāgh) (5:99); Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle.’ But if you turn your backs, [you should know that] he is only responsible for his burden and you are responsible for your burden, and if you obey him, you shall be guided, and the Apostle’s duty is only to communicate (balāgh) in clear terms. (24:54); This is a proclamation (balāgh) for mankind, so that they may be warned thereby and know that He is indeed the one God, and those who possess intellect may take admonition (14:52).
Therefore, simply haphazardly hearing about Islam or receiving some corrupted or twisted form of it or gathering some scattered knowledge, would not satisfy the condition of balāgh and could not be considered bayyinah that would infer the status of rejection and true kufr upon one who has not embraced Islam. However, once the threshold of bayyinah is crossed then any rejection of Islam and refusal to embrace it would make such a person a kāfir in its truest sense, those whom the Quran also terms as the mukadhdhibūn (the ones who deny or belie the message of God). So we find that as the message of God increasingly spreads in a society, the attitude of that society becomes more divided with regards to it, with people either embracing it or becoming animated enemies of it, and gradually we find fewer and fewer who can be considered to have the status of uninformed indifference, until it eventually reaches a point where everyone must make the choice of either rejection or acceptance of the divine bayyinah.
[1] Tahqiq, 9/142, f-k-k.
[2] Tibyan, 10/388.
[3] Tibyan, 10/388.
[4] Lisan, 1/477.
[5] Tahqiq, 1/395-396, b-y-n.
[6] See Tibyan, 10/389.
[7] Razi, 32/327.
[8] Zamakhshari, 4/763.
[9] See Zamakhshari, 4/782; Razi, 32/237.
[10] Mizan, 20/336.
[11] Qaraati, 10/555.
[12] See Tantawi, 15/471.
[13] It should be noted that this opinion has been adopted by most classical exegetes as the meaning of verse 4.
[14] Tabari, 30/169. A similar stance is adopted in Zamakhshari, 4/782; Razi, 32/237; Qaraati, 10/554-555, and related in Thalabi, 10/260; Nemuneh, 27/200. Ṭanṭāwī adopts the same position but combines it with the aforementioned opinion of munfakkīn ʿan kufrihim (Tantawi, 15/471).
[15] Nemuneh, 27/200.
[16] Related in Qurtubi, 20/141.
[17] Related in Qurtubi, 20/141.
[18] John 15:22.
[19] Romans 7:7-9.
[20] 2 Peter 2:21.
[21] Barqi, 1/195; Kafi, 1/11.
[22] Referring here to the Muslim believers.
[23] Of course shirk or ascribing partners to God has consequences that leave a lasting effect on a person’s soul and will inevitably distance him from God and divine mercy (4:48, 4:116). Thus it will entail difficulty and challenges that he will inevitably face on the Day of Judgement. This is why they are not mentioned in 5:69 and there will be grief that they must face on that day even if they are not fully duty-bound, as they did not receive the full divine message.
[24] Mizan, 20/336.
[25] The Quran speaks of beliefs such as the Trinity (5:73) and ascribing prophets Jesus (a) or Ezra (a) as sons of God (9:30) as being shirk.
[26] Andulusi, 5/507.