Translation:
Why should you be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? 606 Allah have upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would you guide those whom Allah have thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah have thrown out of the Way, never shalt you find the Way.
Why should you be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? 606 Allah have upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would you guide those whom Allah have thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah have thrown out of the Way, never shalt you find the Way.
Translation:
How, then, could you be of two minds 106 about the hypocrites, seeing that God [Himself] has disowned them because of their guilt? 107 Do you, perchance, seek to guide those whom God has let go astray - when for him whom God lets go astray thou canst never find any way?
How, then, could you be of two minds 106 about the hypocrites, seeing that God [Himself] has disowned them because of their guilt? 107 Do you, perchance, seek to guide those whom God has let go astray - when for him whom God lets go astray thou canst never find any way?
Commentary:
106 Lit., "two parties".
107 Lit., "seeing that God has thrown them back in result of what they have earned". There are various conjectures, almost all of them of a historical nature, as to the identity of these hypocrites. Some of the commentators think that the verse refers to the hypocrites at Medina in the early years after the hijrah; others (e.g., Tabari) prefer the view expressed by Ibn ‘Abbas, according to whom this refers to certain people of Mecca who, before the hijrah, outwardly accepted Islam but secretly continued to support the pagan Quraysh. It seems to me, however, that there is no need to search after "historical" interpretations of the above verse, since it can easily be understood in general terms. The preceding verse speaks of God, and stresses His oneness and the obvious truth inherent in His revealed message, as well as the certainty of judgment on Resurrection Day. "How, then," continues the argument, "could you be of two minds regarding the moral stature of people who go so far as to pay lip-service to the truth of God's message and are, nevertheless, not willing to make a sincere choice between right and wrong?"
106 Lit., "two parties".
107 Lit., "seeing that God has thrown them back in result of what they have earned". There are various conjectures, almost all of them of a historical nature, as to the identity of these hypocrites. Some of the commentators think that the verse refers to the hypocrites at Medina in the early years after the hijrah; others (e.g., Tabari) prefer the view expressed by Ibn ‘Abbas, according to whom this refers to certain people of Mecca who, before the hijrah, outwardly accepted Islam but secretly continued to support the pagan Quraysh. It seems to me, however, that there is no need to search after "historical" interpretations of the above verse, since it can easily be understood in general terms. The preceding verse speaks of God, and stresses His oneness and the obvious truth inherent in His revealed message, as well as the certainty of judgment on Resurrection Day. "How, then," continues the argument, "could you be of two minds regarding the moral stature of people who go so far as to pay lip-service to the truth of God's message and are, nevertheless, not willing to make a sincere choice between right and wrong?"
606 When the desertion of the hypocrites at Uhud nearly caused a disaster to the Muslim cause there was great feeling among the Muslims of Madinah against them. One party wanted to put them to the sword: another to leave them alone. The actual policy pursued avoided both extremes, and was determined by these verses. It was clear that they were a danger to the Muslim, community if they were admitted into its counsels, and in any case they were a source of demoralisation. But while every caution was used, no extreme measures were taken against them. On the contrary, they were given a chance of making good. If they made a sacrifice for the cause ("flee from what is forbidden," see next verse), their conduct purged their previous cowardice, and their sincerity entitled them to be taken back. But if they deserted the Muslim community again, they were treated as enemies, with the additional penalty of desertion which is enforced by all nations actually at war. Even so, a humane exception was made in the two cases specified in 4:90.