Verses 168 and 169 of Surah Al-Imran, situated within the historical context of the Battle of Uhud, open a gateway towards profound philosophical, mystical, and jurisprudential contemplations. These verses, by critiquing the statements of the hypocrites and elucidating the life of the martyrs, engage with the confrontation between human rational logic and divine will, portraying the position of reason and faith in contrast to the infinite power of the Creator. This treatise, through a rational and mystical perspective, examines the concepts of affirmation (logical reasoning) and proof (divine power), employing jurisprudential and philosophical principles to analyse these verses within a comprehensive and coherent framework. The objective of this work is to present an exegesis that not only clarifies the content of the verses but also, by linking them to contemporary issues, provides guidance for a deeper understanding of monotheism, faith, and human responsibility.
ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوا۟ لِإِخْوَٰنِهِمْ وَقَعَدُوا۟ لَوْ أَطَاعُونَا مَا قُتِلُوا۟ ۗ قُلْ فَٱدْرَءُوا۟ عَنْ أَنفُسِكُمُ ٱلْمَوْتَ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ
Those who said to their brethren, while they themselves refrained from going: If they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed. Say: Then avert death from yourselves if you are truthful.
In verse 168, the hypocrites articulate a statement rooted in rational logic, claiming that if others had remained in the settlement and not proceeded to the battlefield, they would have been spared death. From the perspective of theoretical reason, this argument appears logical, since the probability of death in the safety of ones home is considerably less than in the battlefield. Human reason, operating within the domain of affirmation, compares mortality rates in two contexts: on the battlefield, the chance of death might reach 60 or 70 percent, whereas at home, it falls below one percent. This logic, grounded in caution and avoidance of danger, holds validity within the scope of theoretical reason.
This analysis, from the epistemological philosophy standpoint, highlights the limitation of human reason against divine will. The hypocrites, relying on theoretical reason, sought justification to avoid going to the battlefield, but this logic only applies within the realm of human probabilities and precaution. Psychologically, this discourse signifies an excuse to evade collective responsibility; sociologically, it reflects a preference for individual security over communal welfare.
The divine reply in the verse, Then avert death from yourselves if you are truthful, confronts and tests the hypocrites logic. God commands them, if their claim to avoid death is true, to repel death from themselves. This response apparently conflicts with human rational logic, since human reason, by prudence, can reduce the probability of death but cannot completely avert it. This challenge points to the distinction between affirmation (rational logic) and proof (divine power). Human reason, in the domain of affirmation, advises caution and avoidance of danger; however, in the domain of proof, governed by divine will, death may occur at any place and time.
From the philosophy of religion perspective, this response addresses the tension between reason and revelation and reveals the limitation of human intellect against divine decree. From the mystical viewpoint, this verse invites submission to divine will, which ties death not to place but to the Creators ordinance.
The concept of affirmation refers to rational logic based on calculation and probabilities. In this realm, reason advises humans to avoid danger and remain in a safe environment. Proof, which pertains to divine power, lies beyond the scope of human reason. God, even within strong fortresses (even if you were within fortified towers), can ordain death. This distinction, elaborated extensively in the original text, philosophically indicates the difference between human reason and divine will. Reason is a respected observer capable of forecasting dangers but lacks the power to alter destiny.
From the mystical perspective, this distinction calls for complete submission to God; from the theological standpoint, it emphasises the necessity of faith in the unseen. Examples such as suffocation under a blanket or ceiling collapse illustrate the sovereignty of divine proof that human reason cannot comprehend.
Verse 168 of Surah Al-Imran critiques the rational logic of the hypocrites and underscores the limitation of human reason against divine will. The hypocrites, relying on affirmation, preferred the security of home over the battlefield; however, the divine response, emphasising proof, reveals human incapacity to avert death. This verse invites reflection on the bounds of reason and submission to divine decree.
وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ أَمْوَٰتًا ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَآءٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ
And never consider those who have been killed in the way of Allah as dead; rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision.
Verse 169, emphasising the life of the martyrs, addresses the difference between the apparent and the inner reality of death, portraying the martyrs as alive and recipients of divine sustenance. This life, in proximity to the Lord, refers to an exalted station beyond ordinary human comprehension. From the metaphysical philosophy perspective, death is not annihilation but a transition. The world is one of transformation, where nothing is truly destroyed. Martyrs, through faith and sincerity, attain a level of life blessed with pure divine provision.
From the mystical viewpoint, this life points to divine closeness; from the theological perspective, it addresses resurrection and the survival of existence after death. The difference in the provision granted to martyrs and others derives from distinctions in faith and action. Hypocrites, deprived of faith, lack the martyrs provision, which from an ethical philosophy standpoint, reflects the consequences of hypocrisy and faith.
The original text, citing the hadith Nothing escapes from His knowledge even the weight of an atom, emphasises Gods omniscience over the world. The world is one of transformation, and nothing in it is lost. The example of ash scattered by wind, which does not elude Gods knowledge, exemplifies this omnipresence. From the ontology perspective, this transformation relates to the conservation of matter and energy; from the mystical perspective, it relates to the unity of existence and divine sovereignty over all affairs.
This perspective critiques human claims of power, such as those of Harun al-Rashid, who imagined dominion over the world. Human power, against divine will, is futile; from political philosophy, this exposes the illusion of power.
True faith is absolute submission to God, illustrated by metaphors such as like a dead person in the hands of the washer and Gods donkey. This submission, expressed in the original text with similes like the people of guidance, refers to perfect faith and active monotheism. From the mystical perspective, this submission culminates in annihilation in God (fana fi-Allah); psychologically, it brings inner peace.
The critique of superficial faith practices, such as mere ritual prayers and shouting, demonstrates the necessity of sincerity in faith. Faith resides in the heart, not merely in bodily acts, which from theological and philosophy of religion perspectives, stresses inwardness in faith.
Verse 169, by emphasising the martyrs life, points to the exalted station of faith and sincerity. Death is not annihilation but transition, and the world is a realm of transformation under divine sovereignty. True faith lies in complete submission to God, through which martyrs obtain blessed life and divine provision.
The original text stresses the necessity of identifying the subject, criterion, and ruling in jurisprudence, addressing the methodology of ijtihad. Without recognising the subject (such as the legitimacy of war), the criterion (juridical values), and the ruling (legal verdict), ijtihad is invalid. The example of a travellers prayer lacking validity without understanding the scope of concession highlights the importance of these principles. From the principles of jurisprudence perspective, these three constitute a precise methodology of legal verdict; from philosophy of religion, they relate to rationality in religious decision-making.
The critique of verdicts without criteria, such as non-standard calls to prayer or usury in banks, points to the need for precise understanding of subject and criterion. Religious knowledge, sometimes invalidated due to absence of these principles, requires revision to align with rationality and methodology.
Wars lacking legitimacy and based on politics or ignorance are criminal and foolish. The original text, referencing modern wars such as those in Afghanistan and Syria, criticises exploitation of the oppressed and ignorance of the masses. From the ethics philosophy perspective, this critique concerns justice in war; from sociology, the devastating consequences of war. The example of ignorant soldiers in Ahvaz, victims of mismanagement, illustrates that many combatants are not martyrs but the oppressed.
Followers must know the subject and criterion and avoid blind imitation. The example of a copper-worker who regards submission to anyone but God as foolish highlights the need for rationality in religion. From jurisprudence, this critique addresses individual responsibility in imitation; from mysticism, it stresses submission to God.
