Does the Bracketed Note in the Hilali-Khan Rendering of Quran 47:4 Reflect the Verse?

Answered by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Question

The Hilali-Khan translation brackets a note at Quran 47:4, after “until the war lays down its burdens,” saying one must fight the disbelievers until they accept Islam or submit to Muslim rule—seemingly glossing the word “dhalika,” though Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and Ma’ariful Quran read it no such way. Is the bracket sound, or does it import 9:29’s ruling into 47:4? Does 47:4 impose a standing duty to fight, or only govern a war already underway? Does the perpetual-war reading rest on 9:5 having abrogated 8:61, 60:8, and 2:256? And is Hilali-Khan the right translation for a non-Muslim reader who cannot tell a bracket from the text?

Answer

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful.

The bracketed sentence is not a translation of the word it sits beside, and no classical commentator reads that word as the bracket does. They take dhalika as standing in for an omitted subject: the matter is as has just been stated. Imam Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) gives three constructions of it, all to that effect, and adds that it is a word an eloquent speaker uses when moving from one stretch of speech to the next [Imam Qurtubi, al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Quran, on Q. 47:4].

Imam Nasafi (Allah have mercy on him) glosses it the same way in his Hanafi commentary: the matter is thus, subject and predicate, or else do that to them [Imam Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil, on Q. 47:4].

There is an English witness too. Shaykh Nuh Keller’s (Allah preserve him) certified translation gives the word as “Even thus,” and adds nothing [Quran 47:4; Keller, The Quran Beheld].

Your survey is accurate. Ibn Kathir (Allah have mercy on him) does not comment on dhalika at all, and neither he nor Imam Tabari (Allah have mercy on him) hangs a war aim on it.

That bracket’s content does exist in the tradition, but not here. Part of it belongs to the clause before it, whose terminus the commentators debate: “until the war lays down its burdensome plate and arms.” [Quran 47:4; Keller, The Quran Beheld]

The rest, the alternative of paying the poll tax (jizya), belongs to the verse that mentions it: “until they pay the poll-tax in place of armed duty out of hand, meekly humbled.” [Quran 9:29; Keller, The Quran Beheld]

Carrying one verse’s ruling into another’s brackets, with nothing to mark the move, is the fault you have put your finger on.

Does 47:4 Impose a Standing Obligation to Fight?

As for whether 47:4 imposes a continuing obligation to fight until people accept Islam or pay the poll-tax, it does not, and the grammar settles much of it. Abu Hayyan (Allah have mercy on him) holds that the apparent sense attaches the terminus to the command to bind the captives firmly [Abu Hayyan, al-Bahr al-Muhit, on Q. 47:4].

Imam Razi (Allah have mercy on him) attaches it instead to the command to fight, so the syntax is disputed. The subject matter is not. On either reading, the passage governs conduct inside an engagement already underway, and Ibn Kathir puts its end plainly: once the war has run its course and the battle has broken off, you may free the captives or take a ransom [Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, on Q. 47:4].

Imam Tabari gives his verdict in as many words: the sound view is that the verse is operative and unabrogated (muhkam) [Imam Tabari, Jami al-Bayan, on Q. 47:4].

Read that verdict narrowly. He is ruling on the clause of release and ransom, and he goes on to say that there is nothing objectionable in the choice between release, ransom and execution resting with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and those who lead the community after him, permission to kill having been given in another verse [Imam Tabari, Jami al-Bayan, on Q. 47:4].

Where the early authorities did claim abrogation in 47:4, that clause is what they meant: the question was what an imam may do with a prisoner in hand. Ibn al-Jawzi (Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Qurtubi both report the well-known Hanafi position that the verse of the sword abrogated it. The dispute is about prisoners, not a standing aim of fighting.

Imam Bayhaqi (Allah have mercy on him) puts one side sharply. He records that al-Hajjaj handed a captive to Ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) to be executed, and Ibn Umar refused, saying that this is not what Allah commanded us, then recited this verse. Bayhaqi takes that to show the verse was muhkam in his view, and asks how it could be abrogated when Allah tied it to a terminus [Imam Bayhaqi, Ma’rifat al-Sunan wa’l-Athar].

The other side sits on the same page. Imam Qurtubi carries Ibn al-Arabi’s (Allah have mercy on him) objection: the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) both said this and did it, and Allah’s naming of release and ransom forbids nothing He did not name, just as He set out the lashing for fornication while the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) set out the stoning. Perhaps Ibn Umar disliked the business coming from al-Hajjaj’s hand [Imam Qurtubi, al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Quran, on Q. 47:4].

The commentators also differed over what the terminus refers to: the idolaters abandoning their idolatry, which is Imam Tabari’s gloss; the descent of Sayyiduna Isa (upon him be peace), which he transmits from Mujahid (Allah have mercy on him); and Ibn Atiyya’s (Allah have mercy on him) reading of it as a figure for the duration of the war. Each answers when the fighting ends, and none makes poll tax the point at which it stops.

The Abrogation Claim Behind the Perpetual-War Reading

Now to the abrogation claim, where the real weight of your question lies. That one verse canceled the verses of peace and of no compulsion was held by some early authorities, but it was never settled, and rarely means what a modern reader hears in it.

Take 8:61 first. Imam Tabari, whom you have read, met this claim and rejected it. A text abrogates, he argues, only where it negates the other’s ruling in every respect, and that is not met here: one verse concerns a people with whom peace was permitted, the other those from whom no tribute was accepted, so each is operative in the matter it was revealed about [Imam Tabari, Jami al-Bayan, on Q. 8:61].

The verse he was defending reads: “And if they turn toward peace, then turn towards it and trust to Allah; Verily He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.” [Quran 8:61; Keller, The Quran Beheld]

On 2:256, Imam Qurtubi lists six positions, with abrogation not being the settled one. The second is that the verse is not abrogated at all, held by al-Sha’bi (Allah have mercy on him), al-Hasan al-Basri (Allah have mercy on him), Qatada (Allah have mercy on him), and al-Dahhak (Allah have mercy on him), and supported by Umar (Allah be pleased with him), inviting an elderly Christian woman to Islam and accepting her refusal [Imam Qurtubi, al-Jami li-Ahkam al-Quran, on Q. 2:256].

Ibn Kathir reports the same split and calls the non-abrogation side the majority [Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim, on Q. 2:256].

The verse opens as plainly as it sounds: “There is no compelling anyone to enter the faith: The right is plain from the wrong.” [Quran 2:256; Keller, The Quran Beheld]

Nor does 60:8 need rescuing. Allah Most High says, “Allah does not forbid you from those who have not fought against you in religion or expelled you from your homes to be good and kind to them and show them justice: Verily Allah loves the thoroughly just.” [Quran 60:8; Keller, The Quran Beheld]

Underneath this sits a point of legal theory that dissolves much of the conflict. Imam Shatibi (Allah have mercy on him) states it plainly: abrogation (naskh) in the usage of the early authorities is more general than in the language of the legal theorists, who keep the word for the lifting of a ruling by a later text, whereas the early would also call it abrogation to restrict an unrestricted text, to specify a general one, or to clarify one that was ambiguous or undetailed [Imam Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat].

So when an early authority says the sword verse abrogated a verse of peace, he may mean only that a general expression was specified, or a situation distinguished. Tallies of a hundred and twenty abrogated verses or more rest on that usage, and cannot carry the weight a perpetual-war reading puts on them.

Which Translation to Give Him

On the translation, give him the Saheeh International. Your reason for asking is the right reason to decide it. The Noble Qur’an sets its interpolations in brackets that a reader with no Arabic cannot tell from the text, and some, as you have found, carry claims the verse does not make. What he takes away from 47:4 will be the bracket. Keep your own copy if its notes serve you, since you can check a bracket against the Arabic; it is the wrong book for a reader who cannot.

Your instinct here was sound. May Allah reward you for opening the commentaries rather than accepting a bracket on trust.

And Allah knows best.

Faraz Rabbani

Related Answers

• Jihad, Abrogation in the Quran & the “Verse of the Sword” — Explains why verses commanding peace were not canceled by the so-called “verse of the sword,” since each addresses a different situation rather than one overriding the other.
• Losing My Faith over Verses of Abrogation — Answers the same underlying worry from another angle: why war-related verses don’t overturn “there is no compulsion in religion.”
• What Is Abrogation (Naskh) in the Quran? — Lays out the classical definition of abrogation, useful groundwork for weighing any specific abrogation claim on its own terms.
• What Are the Best English Translations of the Quran? — Surveys the strengths and gaps of the major English renderings, useful for choosing one that won’t mislead a reader unfamiliar with the Arabic.