New Age Islam
Wed Jul 08 2020, 06:42 AM

Radical Islamism and Jihad ( 27 Oct 2019, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

Refutation of ISIS Through the Principle of Zahir and Nass Related to the Quranic verse 9:5 Quoted To Justify Acts of Violence In 21st Century-Part 3

By Ghulam Ghaus, New Age Islam

26 October 2019

This part of the Refutation is based on the jurisprudential principle of Zahir and Nass and that when they conflict with each other the Nass is preferred.

Before delving into the subject, we would like to define Zahir and Nass. Linguistically the term Zahir means ‘apparent’, ‘plain’, manifest and ‘clear’ etc. Technically, Zahir means “whatever becomes apparent to a listener from his hearing only” or in the words of Imam Bazdawi “It (Zahir) is a name for every speech the aim of which became apparent to listener by its wording” whereas Imam Sarakhsi defines “what can be understood by pure hearing without thinking..” Zahir has a clear meaning and yet is susceptible and open to the possibility of an alternative interpretation. The main reason of this is that its apparent meaning is not always in harmony with the context in which it takes place because Zahir is not the principle theme of the text.  

Nass denotes a clear text which clarifies the reason why a sentence is expressed. The implication of Nass is that which is aimed by the speaker, while the meaning of Zahir is not meant by the speaker. 

An example is thus given that when some disbelievers of Makka claimed that both ‘bay’ (trade) and ‘Riba’ (usury) are the same. The Quran refers to their statement, “That is because they say: “Trading is only like ‘Riba (usury)’”, (2:275).

So in response to these people and to differentiate between trade and usury, Allah Almighty revealed the verse “But Allah has permitted trading (bay’) and has forbidden Riba (usury)” (2:275)

This verse is Nass in its showing differentiation between both of these terms ‘trade’ (bay) and ‘usury’ (Riba) as not being the same. And this verse is Zahir in its meaning that trade is lawful and usury is prohibited.

The ruling of Zahir and Nass is to act upon both of them. However if there is a conflict between the two, a preference is given to the Nass over the Zahir.    

Let us ponder over the Zahir and Nass related to the verse 9:5 “kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them”. This verse is Zahir in its commanding the believers to kill the Mushrikin wherever they are found, whereas this verse is Nass in its commanding the believers to fight against the religious persecutors and violators of peace-treaty in the state of war. The purpose of this verse being revealed was to grant permission of killing the religious persecutors and the militants in the state of war; as this was the situation of “kill or be killed”. The very purpose can be understood easily if all the war-related verses are taken into account, such as the verses “And if any one of the Mushrikin seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know” (9:6), “And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression; for, verily, God does not love aggressors” (2:190).

Thus we find that the verse 9:5 is Nass to involve several points; 1) fighting should be on the basis of persecution and not account of religious belief, 2) fighting should take place after the peace-treaty is dismissed and the war is declared, 3) fighting should take place in the state of war. These three points were the main purpose of this verse being revealed. On the contrary, the Zahir of this verse demands that since the word mentioned in this verse is Mushrikin and that is in plural form, so all of them should be killed everywhere. However the Nass (the purpose of the revelation of this verse) goes against the Zahir (apparent meaning) of this verse. And this is very popular principle also taught in the textbooks of Madrasas that when the Nass and Zahir conflict with each other, the Nass is always preferred. 

In other words, let me repeat that the command of fighting against the Mushrikin of Arab was revealed because they had persecuted the Muslims and violated the peace-treaty, and not because they had committed Shirk or Kufr. And it is in this sense that this verse is Nass. As for the Zahir of this verse, this is not in harmony with the Nass of this verse and there is consensus among the scholars of the past (Salaf) and of the present that when Zahir and Nass oppose each other, a preference is always given to Nass and not to the Zahir, so as to get better understanding of the Quran.

Having understood the verse 9:5 under the principle of Zahir and Nass, it would not be correct for the ISIS or any other similar outfits to deduce the ruling of killing the Mushrikin in the context of 21st century which is dominantly different from the context of the early days of Islam.   

Related Articles:

Refutation of Jihadi Ideology That Uses the Verse, ‘Kill the Mushrikin Wherever You Find Them’ To Justify Terrorism in 21st Century: Linguistic Analysis of the Word ‘Mushrikin’ Part-1

Refutation of Jihadi Ideology: Who Are The Mushrikin Mentioned In The Quranic Verse 9:5? - Part 2

A regular Columnist with, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is an Alim and Fazil (Classical Islamic scholar), with a Sufi-Sunni background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator. He has also done B.A (Hons.) in Arabic, M.A. in Arabic and M.A in English from JMI, New Delhi. He is Interested in Islamic Sciences; Theology, Jurisprudence, Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic mysticism (Tasawwuf).


New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism

Compose your comments here

Total Comments (32)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of

Total Comments (32)

  1. Zionist sites like MEMRI are the darlings of anti-Islamic hate merchants like Hats Off.
    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin 09/12/2019 17:46:11
  2. dear mr GGS, what are doing on MEMRI - an islamophobic, racist, zionist, jewish hate site?
    at least according to the most moderate muslim in the 1400 year history of the faith - mr ghulam mohiyuddin.
    i thought MEMRI tv is only watched by shameless murtads and apostates.
    et tu?
    By hats off! 09/12/2019 03:43:00
  3. Mr. Sultan Shahin always says, “The clergy is required to counter the exclusivist Jihadi theology of violence and supremacism”.
    So who is this clergy required to counter such and such things? Is this clergy meant by him or is it a general call?
    By Hamid Ansari 09/12/2019 02:27:04
  4. For example, A and B are two different countries. Both are living in the state of war. Sometimes it happens that both fight continuously and sometimes they take a break while fighting. Sometimes one of the groups comes from the battlefield to its safe land of country on the condition of losing all its weapons or otherwise during the fighting. After they gain weapons again, they again rush to the battlefield. The scholars expressed such a fighting “offensive fighting”. Such a fighting was from both sides. To say, it was the common practice of those days when the war used to take place for the expansionist reaons. There could be no reason why they should have considered such an offensive fighting to be wrong, given their age and need of time.

    But today, the situation has changed and something that was not a crime is regarded equally all a crime. Today all have agreed to live peacefully and in accord with the Charters of United Nations. Breaking the agreement is tantamount to deception, which is extremely disliked practice in Islam. The classical textbooks witness that if you need to fight your enemies, you will first have to make declaration. This means you can’t deceive even your own enemies.

    So the same thing (“offensive fighting”) which could be justified for certains reasons in the past can not be justified with the loss of those reasons in the present. Henceforth, it would be injustice to ignore all the reasons, causes and conditions which are in clear disharmony with those of the past.


    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي 09/12/2019 02:22:34
  5. Will it not be fine to make an objective assessment whether or not the past scholars might be rightful in giving religious justification for “offensive fighting” in some cases, because then the ‘offensive fighting’ was actually meant for ‘defensive fighting’. Will it not be solid to silence the cries of jihadists, if we say it today that waging or intitiating “the offensive war” will be a crime, as per Islamic perspective itself, which does not allow anyone to break the rules of war, that is, when you make treaties, you should abide by the treaties, whatever it may be. From this perspective, how can it be that Islam allows offensive fighting in today's context?  

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي 09/12/2019 01:02:08