Presented by Zia H Shah MD
Abstract
Surah Al-Mumtahanah (Chapter 60) – meaning “The Woman to be Examined” – is a Medinan chapter revealed around the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (6 AH/628 CE) and before the conquest of Mecca. It addresses the delicate balance Muslims had to maintain between loyalty to the faith community and justice toward non-Muslims during a period of conflict and reconciliation. The chapter opens by forbidding alliances with hostile enemies of the faith, illustrated by the case of a Companion who attempted to secretly aid the Meccan pagans (verses 1–3). It then cites Prophet Abraham’s example of principled disavowal of idolatry – even against his own people – as a model for believers (verses 4–6). Yet the Qur’an tempers this stance with hope and fairness: it envisages former enemies becoming friends by God’s grace and permits kindness towards those polytheists who remained peaceful (verses 7–9). The latter part of the surah (verses 10–11) provides practical instructions for a specific Hudaybiyyah scenario: believing women fleeing Mecca to join the Muslims. It nullifies marriages between Muslim women and idolatrous husbands – an application of the Qur’anic principle that believers should not marry polytheists – while prescribing just procedures for divorce and dowry reimbursement. Finally, verses 12–13 describe the oath of allegiance taken by Muslim women and conclude with a warning against allying with those persistently under God’s wrath. In essence, Surah 60 delineates the boundaries of loyalty and separation between the believers and the idolaters, while affirming ethical conduct and the eventual prospect of reconciliation. The historical context (e.g. the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and cases of emigrant women) is crucial to understanding these rulings, and classical exegetes like Ibn Kathīr and al-Ṭabarī have preserved detailed reports that illuminate the chapter’s occasion of revelation.
Verses 1–6: Withholding Alliance from Enemies of Faith, and Abraham’s Example
Translation (Abdel Haleem): “You who believe, do not take My enemies and yours as your allies, showing them friendship when they have rejected the truth you have received, and have driven you and the Messenger out simply because you believe in God, your Lord – not if you truly emigrated in order to strive for My cause and seek My good pleasure. You secretly show them friendship––I know all you conceal and all you reveal––but any of you who do this are straying from the right path. If they gain the upper hand over you, they will revert to being your enemies and stretch out their hands and tongues to harm you; it is their dearest wish that you may renounce your faith. Neither your kinsfolk nor your children will be any use to you on the Day of Resurrection: He will separate you out. God sees everything you do. You have a good example in Abraham and his companions, when they said to their people, ‘We disown you and what you worship besides God! We renounce you! Until you believe in God alone, the enmity and hatred that has arisen between us will endure!’ – except when Abraham said to his father, ‘I will pray for forgiveness for you though I cannot protect you from God’ – [they prayed] ‘Lord, we have put our trust in You; we turn to You; You are our final destination. Lord, do not expose us to mistreatment [at the hands of] the disbelievers. Forgive us, Lord, for You are the Almighty, the All Wise.’ Truly, they are a good example for you [believers] to follow, a good example for those who fear God and the Last Day. If anyone turns away, [remember] God is self-sufficing and worthy of all praise.”
Historical Context & Reason for Revelation: The opening injunction was revealed in the context of an incident involving Hatib ibn Abi Balta‘ah, a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ. On the eve of the Muslim campaign to reconquer Mecca (circa 8 AH), Hatib secretly sent a letter to the Quraysh leaders warning them of the Prophet’s plans, hoping to earn their favor and secure protection for his family and property in Mecca. The attempt at espionage was divinely exposed: the messengers were intercepted and the letter retrieved before it reached the enemy. When confronted, Hatib pleaded that he acted not out of disbelief or betrayal, but as a father desperate to safeguard his dependents, since unlike other Emigrants he had no powerful clan in Mecca to shield his kin. Aḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and other sources record that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb urged the Prophet to let him execute Hatib for treason, calling him a hypocrite. The Prophet ﷺ, however, rejected ʿUmar’s harsh judgment. He noted Hatib’s past loyalty – he was a veteran of the Battle of Badr – and said, “He has told you the truth… Hatib witnessed Badr, and perhaps God has looked upon the people of Badr and said, ‘Do as you will, for I have forgiven you’.”. Thus, Hatib’s excuse was accepted and he was forgiven in light of his earlier sacrifices for Islam. The verses that were revealed, however, go beyond Hatib’s individual story to establish a general principle: Muslims must not clandestinely or openly ally themselves with the enemies of God and His Messenger in a time of religious conflict. Any act that aids those “who have disbelieved in the truth” and who persecute Muslims is “straying from the right path” (dalāla), even if done for personal reasons. Classical exegetes emphasize that no worldly ties can justify betraying the cause of faith.
Loyalty to Faith over Family: Verse 2 warns of the stark reality: if the hostile disbelievers “gain the upper hand” they will show no mercy, and would harm the believers by both “hands and tongues,” wishing to make them apostatize. This reflects the Quraysh’s past behavior of torture, vilification, and expulsion of the Muslims from Mecca. Therefore, however friendly one’s personal relations with such enemies might be (as Hatib had family among the pagans), it is dangerously naïve to extend them sensitive cooperation in wartime. Verse 3 reminds believers that on Yawm al-Qiyāmah (the Day of Resurrection) blood relations will not avail them if they have been disloyal to God’s cause: “Neither your kin nor your children will be of any use to you… He will separate you out”. According to commentary, this alludes to people like Hatib who might act out of family attachment – a warning that no loved one can save a soul that compromises its faith. Each individual will face God’s judgment alone, so worldly excuses based on kinship will carry no weight. This theme, that familial bonds cannot override religious accountability, is echoed elsewhere in the Qur’an (e.g. 70:10-14, 80:34-37). Thus, believers are taught not to risk their Hereafter for the sake of protecting relatives if it involves treachery to Islam. The context of early Islam made this principle very tangible: many Muslims were fighting against their own tribes or even relatives who remained polytheists, and the Qur’an consistently prioritizes religious solidarity (muwālāh) over tribal or family loyalty in such cases.
Abraham’s Excellent Example (Uswa Ḥasana): Verses 4–6 then present Prophet Abraham (Ibrāhīm) and his followers as a timeless model of balancing uncompromising faith with personal compassion. Abraham lived in a pagan society; when he and those with him accepted monotheism, they declared to their people: “We disown you (barīʾūna minkum) and whatever idols you worship besides God. We renounce you, and enmity and hatred have arisen between us and you forever – until you believe in God alone.” This statement, quoted in verse 4, illustrates the Quranic concept of al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ (loyalty and disavowal) in its pure form. Abraham and his companions openly dissociated themselves from the polytheism of their community, even if it meant opposing their own kin. They did not mince words about the “enmity (ʿadāwa) and hatred (bughḍ)” that would necessarily exist so long as the others persisted in idolatry. This reflects a principled stand: no amicable relationship can remain between true monotheists and active polytheists, because their values are in direct conflict. However, the Qur’an also notes an exception in Abraham’s conduct: “except (illā) when Abraham said to his father, ‘I will ask forgiveness for you, though I have no power to protect you from God’.” Abraham’s father (named Āzar in Islamic tradition) was an idol-maker and unbeliever, yet Abraham initially maintained a level of filial duty by praying for his forgiveness (cf. Qur’an 19:47, 9:114). The inclusion of this detail shows that Abraham’s personal compassion for his father did not negate his renunciation of idolatry. He clarifies that his prayer cannot save his father from God’s judgment – it was a gesture of hope and kindness, not an endorsement of his father’s beliefs. Later Islamic narratives explain that Abraham ceased praying for his father once it became clear his father died an impenitent polytheist (see Qur’an 9:114). In any case, Abraham’s behavior, as presented here, teaches that believers may show benevolence and concern for their non-believing relatives, but must not support or join them in matters of faith.
Verses 5–6 continue with the supplications of Abraham and his followers, depicting their reliance on God amidst hostility: “Lord, we have put our trust in You… Do not make us a trial for the disbelievers (i.e. do not let them persecute or overpower us) and forgive us… You are the Mighty, the Wise.” These prayers reveal a humble attitude: rather than hatred driven by ego, Abraham’s stance was rooted in devotion to God and concern for righteousness. He feared his people’s oppression and begged God’s pardon for any shortcomings. In verse 6, God affirms that in this balance of firmness and humility, Abraham’s community provided “an excellent example” (uswa ḥasana) for all believers – especially for those “who fear God and the Last Day”. This clause implies that only those who prioritize divine accountability will be able to emulate Abraham’s difficult example of estrangement from his own society for the sake of God. The verse concludes by reminding that “if anyone turns away, God is self-sufficient (ghanī) and worthy of all praise”. In other words, God does not need human allegiance – it is mankind that needs His guidance. Any believer who abandons the principles exemplified by Abraham (out of worldly attachment or fear) only harms himself; God remains exalted beyond need.
Exegetical Insights: Classical mufassirūn stress that the “enmity and hatred” Abraham proclaimed was for the sake of God, not personal malice. Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr note that Abraham’s behavior sets a precedent that believers must not compromise with shirk (idolatry), even with loved ones, though they should still desire guidance and forgiveness for the misguided as Abraham did for his father. Al-Qurṭubī points out that the only aspect of Abraham’s conduct Muslims are not required to follow is his continued prayer for his father after it was clear his father was an “enemy of God” – since Muhammad ﷺ was later barred from praying for deceased unbelievers. Aside from that, Abraham’s unwavering stance is held up as a standard of faith-based solidarity. These verses were particularly pertinent to the Prophet Muhammad’s companions: many of them, like Abraham, had to leave behind or oppose their pagan families for Islam. For instance, Abu ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ had to face his own father in battle, and Musʿab ibn ʿUmayr was disowned by his mother for converting. The Quran’s invocation of Abraham would have reassured such believers that severing certain ties was a sacrifice mandated by faith, with the promise that God’s support replaces the lost bonds (“Lord, in You we have put our trust…”). At the same time, the reference to Abraham’s father subtly acknowledges the emotional pain of these ruptures, validating the human side of concern even as it requires prioritizing obedience to God.
In sum, verses 1–6 instruct the Muslim community to withhold alliance and intimate friendship from those actively battling the faith, even if they are relatives or acquaintances. This policy is exemplified by the reprimand of Hatib’s action and by Abraham’s model of barāʾ (disavowal). Believers are to derive their standards of loyalty from religious principle above all. No conflict of interest (whether familial, economic, or political) should lead a believer to aid “God’s enemies and your enemies”. Yet, the Quranic narrative also humanizes this directive: it acknowledges the believers’ hardships in doing so and holds up the solace of prophetic precedent and trust in God’s ultimate justice. Such teachings ensured the early Muslims maintained a distinct identity and firm front in the face of persecution, without descending into wanton cruelty – as seen, the same passage holds Abraham’s compassionate prayer as part of the uswa ḥasana. This careful balance between religious loyalty and personal integrity underlies the entire surah.
Verses 7–9: Hope for Reconciliation and Justice Toward Non-Hostile Non-Muslims
Translation (Abdel Haleem): “Perhaps God will put, between you and those you now consider enemies, affection. God is most Powerful; God is Forgiving and Merciful. And He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just. But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and supported others in driving you out: any of you who take them as allies will be wrongdoers.”
After the strict warnings in the opening section, the tone shifts in verse 7 with a message of optimism and divine compassion. The Quran acknowledges that circumstances can change dramatically: “It may well be that God will create affection (mawadda) between you and those with whom you are [presently] at enmity”. This astonishing statement foretold that some of the bitterest foes of Islam might one day become friends or even believers. In fact, this prophecy was realized within the Prophet’s lifetime. Many leading Quraysh enemies embraced Islam en masse at the Conquest of Mecca (8 AH) or thereafter, transforming relations. Classical commentators like al-Māwardī and Al-Ṭabarī note that verse 7 anticipated events such as Abū Sufyān, Hind bint ʿUtba, and others who fought Islam eventually entering the fold of Islam, thus turning hostility into friendship. The Qur’an emphasizes that God is Capable of all things (indeed, “God is All-Powerful”) and All-Forgiving, so even entrenched enmity can be overcome by His grace. This was a crucial reassurance to Muslims who had been estranged from family and tribe: it held out hope that ties could be mended in the future if the opponents found guidance. As Ibn ʿAbbās reportedly commented, “God did indeed bring about affection after hatred”, alluding to how former enemies like the Quraysh after conversion became brethren in faith. The verse subtly teaches believers not to burn bridges; while remaining firm, they should not lose hope in the potential for reconciliation.
Verses 8 and 9 then delineate an important distinction in how Muslims are to treat non-Muslims, introducing a principle of ethical engagement. Verse 8 states that “Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly (birr) and justly (qist) with those who did not fight you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes”. In other words, if a non-Muslim (even a polytheist) has not shown active hostility or persecution toward the believers, Muslims are not only allowed but encouraged to behave benevolently and equitably with them. The word birr implies a broad kind treatment (often used for goodness to parents), and qist means justice/fairness. God “loves those who are just,” affirming that justice toward others is a religious duty. This verse served to clarify that the earlier prohibition of intimate alliance (walāʾ) with “enemies” (verses 1 and 9) did not extend to all interactions with all non-Muslims. Muslims were not to mistreat or cut off relations with peaceful non-believers; on the contrary, they should uphold good conduct and fairness in all dealings.
Occasion of Revelation: The Islamic tradition links verse 8 to a specific incident involving Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr, a companion of the Prophet ﷺ. Asmā’ was the daughter of Abū Bakr and sister of ʿĀ’isha; her mother, Qutaylah bint ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā, was a polytheist who had remained in Mecca. After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (which established a temporary peace between the Muslims and Quraysh), Qutaylah came to Medina to visit her daughter Asmā’, bringing gifts and seeking some contact. Asmā’, however, was uncertain how to respond: she had committed to the Qur’anic mandate of disavowing those who rejected Islam, and here was her idolatress mother at her doorstep. As a dutiful daughter and a pious Muslim, Asmā’ sought guidance. She refused to admit her mother or accept the gifts until she could ask the Prophet ﷺ what was permitted. The Prophet’s response, recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Aḥmad’s Musnad, was that Asmā’ “should maintain ties of kinship with her mother”. He advised her to accept the gifts and treat her mother kindly despite the latter’s faith. It was in this context that Allah revealed, “God does not forbid you from doing good and being just toward those who did not fight you…” (60:8). This verse thus validated the Prophet’s guidance to Asmā’ – kindness to one’s non-Muslim mother was not only allowed but implied by the principles of the faith.
Implications: Verse 8 has broad significance as it establishes a general rule of conviviality and fairness in pluralistic settings. The early Muslim community had ongoing relations with many non-Muslim groups – not only in Mecca but also Jewish and Christian tribes in Medina and surrounding areas. This verse provided the ethical baseline: as long as these others were not engaged in oppression or religious war against the Muslims, the Muslims were to uphold good neighborly conduct, goodwill, and justice. Many jurists and scholars later cited 60:8 to underline that Islam does not require hostility toward all unbelievers. For instance, Imām al-Shāfiʿī commented that this verse allows Muslims to give charity to non-Muslims, exchange gifts, and generally interact with benevolence, provided the non-Muslims are not harbingers of war. We see its spirit in practice in numerous accounts: the Prophet ﷺ himself hosted friendly delegations of Christian Abyssinians in his mosque and maintained a peace treaty with the largely pagan town of Ḥudhaybiyya. In a modern context, 60:8 is often quoted to promote cordial relations and cooperation between Muslims and followers of other faiths who live together peacefully.
In contrast, verse 9 reiterates and specifies the prohibition from verse 1: “God only forbids you from befriending/allying with those who fought you on account of religion, expelled you from your homes, or aided in your expulsion.” These are exactly the crimes the Meccan idolaters had committed against the early Muslims (persecution for faith, the Hijra expulsion, and coalition in attempting to eradicate the Muslims). Such persons – active oppressors and aggressors – are off-limits for relationships of loyalty. To support or ally with them (tatawallawhum) would be to betray justice and faith, hence “whoever takes them as allies, it is they who are the ẓālimūn (wrongdoers)”. The term ẓālim here implies a moral transgressor – in this case one who wrongs himself and the community by supporting injustice. Notably, even in this verse the Qur’an’s phrasing “those who fought you because of religion” indicates that the hostility in question is one-sided (initiated by the disbelievers). Islam was not instructing believers to hate others merely for being non-Muslim, but rather to refuse friendship to those who demonstrated hatred and violence toward Islam. The historical application was clear: Muslims at that time could not be in a relation of walāʾ (protection, alliance) with the militant Quraysh or their confederates. An example of violating this would have been if a Muslim in Medina acted as a spy for the Quraysh (exactly Hatib’s case addressed earlier). Thus verses 8–9 draw a line of demarcation based on behavior: peaceful non-Muslims are to be treated with birr, while hostile persecutors are to be disavowed. This balanced directive prevents both excessive harshness and naiveté. It became the foundation of the diplomacy and social relations guidelines in Islamic law: forming the basis of rules that allow friendship, marriage, business, and alliance with non-Muslims in peace, but prohibit aiding those at war with Muslims.
Classical and Scholarly References: In Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, it is noted that Asmā’s incident exemplified the meaning of 60:8 – the Prophet’s instruction to honor kinship ties with a non-believing mother set a precedent. Imām al-Bukhārī even titled a chapter of his Ṣaḥīḥ after this verse when recounting Asmā’s story, highlighting its jurisprudential import. Maulana Mawdūdī writes that verses 8–9 “make the Islamic attitude plain” – kindness and justice toward all who live in peace, and a firm stance against those who show implacable hostility. The renowned exegete Ṭabāṭabā’ī (Shia) similarly emphasizes that Islam’s default toward non-combatants is birr, citing how the Prophet ﷺ upheld ties with his uncle Abu Talib (a non-Muslim who protected him) and with the Najrān Christians, honoring their rights. This is in harmony with the Quranic ethos that there is “no compulsion in religion” (2:256) – meaning those who do not fight the Muslims are not to be coerced or mistreated, but rather engaged with righteousness.
In summary, verses 7–9 introduce mercy and nuance into the discussion of Muslim-non-Muslim relations. The Qur’an assures believers that today’s enemy could be tomorrow’s beloved friend by God’s will. It then lays down an enduring guideline: always act equitably and humanely toward non-Muslims who harbor no ill intent, and reserve your resistance only for those who actively oppress or attack you. This nuanced stance prevented the early Muslims from adopting a blanket animosity towards all unbelievers; instead, it cultivated discernment between different categories of people. It also prepared their hearts to accept their former enemies when reconciliation eventually came – as it did, remarkably, at the conquest of Mecca when the Prophet declared a general amnesty and many conflicts were healed. Thus, the prohibition of alliance in this surah is principled and conditional, not based on hatred for difference, but on opposing injustice and protecting the faith. And even that opposition is not permanent: the door to forgiveness and friendship remains open through God’s mercy (“God is Forgiving and Merciful” is pointedly mentioned in verse 7). These teachings were vital in shaping the Prophet’s policies and continue to inform Islamic principles of coexistence and loyalty.
Verses 10–11: Emigrant Believing Women and the Prohibition of Muslim–Polytheist Marriage
Translation (Abdel Haleem): “You who believe, when believing women come to you as emigrants, test them – God knows best about their faith – and if you are sure of their belief, do not send them back to the disbelievers: they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them. Give the disbelievers whatever bride-gifts they have paid – if you choose to marry [these women], there is no blame on you once you have paid them their bride-gifts – and do not yourselves hold on to marriage ties with disbelieving women. Ask for repayment of the bride-gifts you have paid, and let the disbelievers do the same. That is God’s judgment: He judges between you. God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. If any of you have wives who desert you to the disbelievers, and your community subsequently gains [compensation] from them, then pay those whose wives have deserted them the equivalent of whatever bride-gift they had paid. And be mindful of God, in whom you believe.”
These verses provided practical rulings in a very sensitive situation that arose after the Treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyyah (628 CE). The treaty, concluded between the Prophet ﷺ and the Quraysh of Mecca, had a specific clause stipulating that “if any person from the Quraysh goes over to the Muslims, he shall be returned to Mecca”, whereas anyone who left Medina for Mecca would not be returned. The wording “any person” (man ata-ka minhum min rijālina… in some reports) was general and apparently covered both men and women. This asymmetric term was a bitter pill for the Muslims – it seemed to force them to send escapees back to their oppressors – yet the Prophet, seeking peace, initially agreed to it under divine guidance. Not long after the treaty, real cases began to test this clause. First, a man named Abū Jandal, who had been imprisoned in Mecca for being Muslim, managed to break free and reach the Muslim camp at Ḥudaybiyyah on the very day the treaty was being finalized. The Quraysh delegates demanded his return under the new pact. Despite the Companions’ anguish – they saw their fellow Muslim in shackles begging for help – the Prophet honored the agreement and returned Abu Jandal, assuring him, “Be patient and seek your reward from Allah. He will soon provide a way out for you” (as recounted in Ibn Hishām’s Sīrah). This demonstrated the Prophet’s commitment to the treaty even in a heartbreaking scenario.
Soon afterwards, another scenario emerged – this time involving women converts. A number of women from Mecca, upon embracing Islam, fled to Medina without their (still pagan) husbands or families. One early case was Sayyidah Sabiya (or Sābirah) bint al-Ḥārith al-Aslamiyyah. She was married to a pagan husband (his name is given as Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah in some sources, or Musāfir al-Makhzūmī in others). After Hudaybiyyah, Sabiya escaped Mecca and sought refuge with the Muslims in Medina. Shortly thereafter, her husband came to Medina demanding her return, citing the new treaty and asserting that the agreement’s “seal was not yet dry”. The Prophet ﷺ found himself in a delicate predicament: returning this woman to an idolatrous environment (and an idolater husband) seemed morally wrong now that she was a believer, yet the treaty’s terms ostensibly required it. At this juncture, verses 10–11 were revealed by Allah, resolving the matter by exempting women from the treaty’s handover clause and setting rules for such cases.
The command “when believing women come to you as muhājirāt (emigrants), test them” means the Muslims were to verify the sincerity of these women’s faith. The verse itself notes “God knows best their faith” – indicating that only God can know the heart with certainty – but the believers are instructed to make a reasonable assessment (imtiḥān) of the women’s motives. According to Ibn ʿAbbās, the test involved an oath: the Prophet would ask the woman to swear by God that she truly embraced Islam for belief and not for any other worldly reason. She had to declare, for example, that she did not flee Mecca due to anger at her husband or out of love for someone in Medina, but solely “out of longing for Islam”. This procedure is recorded in hadith (e.g. in Sunan al-Tirmidhī, graded ḥasan–ṣaḥīḥ) and is further confirmed by the verse 12 conditions (the pledge of allegiance) discussed later. If the emigrant woman passed the test – meaning the Muslims were satisfied she was a genuine believer and not a covert spy or a capricious runaway – then two rulings applied:
- “Do not send them back to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [as wives] for the disbelievers, nor are those [disbelievers] lawful for them.” This categorically forbade returning a believing woman to her pagan husband. Her marriage to the unbeliever is considered nullified by her Islam. In Islamic law, this established that difference of religion (Islam vs. shirk) is a barrier to the validity of marriage. A Muslim woman cannot be in wedlock with a non-Muslim man who remains an idolater. This ruling was effectively a specific implementation of the general principle earlier revealed in Qur’an 2:221, which states: “Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe… Nor marry [your believing women] to polytheistic men until they believe.”. By ending these mixed marriages, the Quran institutionalized a separation between the Muslim and polytheist communities on the most intimate social level (family). It ensured that a woman who had accepted Islam would not be forced back into a household where idolatry prevailed, protecting her faith and autonomy.
- Financial Compensation: The verse commands, “Give the disbelievers whatever bride-gifts (mahr) they had paid.” The Prophet and the Muslims were instructed to return the dowry to the former husband, so that the man does not suffer financial loss from the dissolution of the marriage. This demonstrates the principle of fair dealing even with unbelievers: though the husband’s religion nullified the marriage, he should be reimbursed the mahr (dower) he had given his wife at marriage, since he was losing his wife through no fault of his own (from his perspective). The Muslims duly complied – historical reports say that for each woman who came over, the Prophet sent back to her husband the equivalent of the mahr he had given. Conversely, the verse later says, “do not hold on to any marriage bonds with disbelieving women; ask for what you have spent, and let them ask for what they spent”. This refers to the opposite scenario: if a Muslim man’s wife remained an idolater in Mecca (or fled to the unbelievers), that marriage too is ended, and the husband can demand his paid dowry back. In practice, after Hudaybiyyah some Muslim men’s wives or fiancées did not convert and stayed behind; the community was entitled to claim the dower back from the Quraysh authorities. Thus, parity was established: each side should return the marriage payments to the other in cases of religious separation. The Quran calls this ruling “God’s judgment (ḥukm)” and emphasizes God’s knowledge and wisdom in legislating it. Indeed, it was a just and orderly solution, preventing disputes and mitigating heartbreak with fairness.
The Prophet ﷺ implemented these commands immediately. He informed the Meccans that henceforth women were exempt from the treaty’s return clause. According to a report recorded by Imām al-Qurṭubī (from Ibn ʿAbbās), when the Quraysh argued about one particular woman – Umm Kulthūm bint ʿUqba – the Prophet responded that the treaty terms (literally phrased in the masculine) “applied to men, not to women”, and he refused to hand her back. Umm Kulthūm was a young woman from a prominent Meccan family (her father ʿUqba ibn Abī Muʿayṭ was a staunch enemy of Islam). She fled to Medina around this time, and her two brothers (still pagans) came to demand her return. The Prophet did return her two brothers (since they were men under treaty), but he kept Umm Kulthūm and provided her protection, citing the divine revelation that forbade sending her back. Several other women, such as the wives of unbelievers from Jeddah or Ta’if, similarly sought refuge and were admitted after testing. These verses thus abrogated that part of the Hudaybiyyah pact or, as some commentators prefer, “clarified” that women were not intended to be included. Importantly, the Quraysh did not break the treaty over this issue – they seemingly accepted the Prophet’s explanation or at least did not retaliate, and the peace continued for the agreed period. This indicates that the exemption was mutually observed, likely because the Meccans themselves did not want “dangerous ideas” (i.e., Islam) spreading back into Mecca through returning women, and they hadn’t explicitly considered women in the first place (the treaty wording “man” possibly literally meant males only in their understanding).
Marriage Prohibition and Community Separation: The key legal principle underscored by verse 10 is that a marriage cannot continue across the believer–polytheist divide. The phrase “lā hunna ḥillun lahum wa lā hum yaḥillūna lahunna” – “such women are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them” – is very emphatic. This became a cornerstone of Islamic family law: a Muslim woman may not be married to a non-Muslim man, and if she embraces Islam while her husband remains polytheist, the marriage is annulled (after a waiting period, per fiqh elaboration). Likewise, a Muslim man, if he had a polytheist wife and she remains unbelieving, must let her go (“hold not to the ties of marriage with disbelieving women” as verse 10 says). This rule, initially applied in the context of Arabian idolatry, created a clear social demarcation – it prevented interfaith marriages that could undermine the distinct umma identity or subject a Muslim to influence in a household of shirk. As one commentator notes, “no marital bond can continue between a believer and a mushrik”; faith is a non-negotiable foundation for marriage in Islam. Quran 2:221 had earlier declared this in general terms, forbidding Muslim men and women from marrying al-mushrikīn (idolatrous pagans) and stating that “a believing slave is better than a polytheist”, because the latter “beckons to the Fire”. Surah 60:10 now put that principle into action in a real case. It is worth noting the Quran’s consistency: the ban on intermarriage is tied specifically to polytheists (those “who associate others with God”). People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb) – Jews and Christians – were not considered polytheists in this legal sense, and indeed the Qur’an explicitly permitted marriage with them in Qur’an 5:5, which was revealed around the same era. Verse 5:5 states:
“Today all good things have been made lawful for you. The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. Likewise, permissible for you in marriage are chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, once you have given them their bridal dowers and married them properly – not in fornication or as secret lovers. Whoever rejects faith [i.e. turns away from this guidance] will find his work in vain and will be among the losers in the Hereafter.”
Classical scholars unanimously understood from this (and the Prophet’s own marriages to Jewish and Christian women) that a Muslim man may marry a Jewish or Christian woman. They did not view Jews or Christians as “mushrik” in the context of marriage law. Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr explicitly note that Qur’ān 2:221’s prohibition “Do not marry polytheists…” was never applied to People of the Book, since al-mushrikīn in Qur’anic usage refers to idolatrous pagans lacking any scripture, not to those who affirm the One God albeit with theological deviations. The very fact that Qur’an 5:5 carved out an allowance for marrying from the People of the Book means that they are a separate category; it “indicates they are distinct from the polytheists who are categorically forbidden”. This distinction has important implications: it shows that the Qur’anic intent behind banning certain intermarriages was to protect the monotheistic integrity of the Muslim community, not to erect racial or ethnic barriers. Marriage was seen as a “lifelong spiritual partnership”; hence shared core faith in one God was deemed essential. Marrying an idolatress or idolater – someone who literally worships other gods – was akin to inviting spiritual ruin (“beckoning to the Fire” in 2:221). In contrast, marrying a Jew or Christian, while not ideal to some jurists, was allowed since those faiths affirm the same God and thus pose less risk to the Muslim’s religion.
It should be mentioned that classical law permitted only Muslim men to marry Jewish or Christian women, not vice versa (Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men). This was based on community considerations (children traditionally follow the father’s religion, etc.) and interpretation of the silences in the texts. However, the Qur’anic text itself does not explicitly prohibit Muslim women from marrying People of the Book, and some modern scholars have argued the permission should be gender-symmetrical. For example, contemporary researcher Farhad Shafti contends that “no verse of the Qur’an forbids marriage between Muslim women and the People of the Book,” suggesting the original Qur’anic criteria were about belief in one God and peaceful disposition, not gender. Similarly, writer Zia Shah notes that the logic behind 5:5 – recognition of shared monotheism – would apply equally to a Muslim woman’s potential marriage to a Jewish/Christian man who respects her faith. This is a minority view at present, and traditional consensus disallows it, but it is an example of how Qur’an 60:10 and related verses continue to be discussed in modern jurisprudence with an eye on gender justice and reciprocity. In any case, both traditional and reformist interpretations agree on the absolute prohibition of marriage with idolaters (those outside the Abrahamic-monotheistic paradigm) for both Muslim men and women. That rule is firmly rooted in these verses and remains unchallenged across Islamic thought. It was a crucial step in demarcating the Muslim community as a distinct faith group in Arabia, where previously intermarriage across tribes and religions was common.
Verse 11 addresses a residual issue: “If any of your wives desert you to the disbelievers, and then your turn comes (faʿāqabtum), give those whose wives have gone the equivalent of what they had spent.” This implies that if a Muslim man’s wife left him and went to the unbelievers’ side (for instance, if she apostatized or simply chose to remain with the pagans after her husband made Hijrah), and the Muslims later acquired some war booty or compensation from the disbelievers, then out of that collective fund the community should reimburse that man his lost mahr. The word “ʿāqabtum” has been interpreted to mean “you obtain something in return”, i.e. spoils or a compensatory gain from the other side. The Prophet enforced this too. It so happened that not only did women come from Mecca to Medina, but a couple of women in Medina (married to Muslims) defected to Mecca after Hudaybiyyah. One example sometimes cited is the case of two women, the wives of some Companions, who renounced Islam and rejoined the pagans. When the Quraysh refused to return the dowers for these women, and conflict eventually resumed (leading to the Muslim victory over Quraysh in 630 CE), the Muslims then took the equivalent value for the bereft husbands from Quraysh’s war booty or through the post-conquest settlements. Verse 11 essentially legislated a fair outcome for such rare cases, ensuring Muslim husbands were not financially disadvantaged by their wives’ apostasy or flight. It also cemented the mutual understanding: each side should pay back the dowries of women who left, creating symmetry in obligations.
Tafsir and Reflections: Ibn Kathīr remarks that these rulings showed the loftiness of Sharia in honoring women’s faith choices – a woman who embraced Islam was not to be returned to “the enemies of Islam,” honoring her religious agency. This was remarkable for the time, as women generally had little say in Arabia. Islam made the faith of a woman paramount over her husband’s claim on her. Al-Ṭabarī in his Tārīkh records these events in detail, and how the Prophet’s firm yet fair stance won the confidence of converts. The Maʿāriful Qur’ān commentary notes that the Muslims scrupulously followed these commands, scrupulously returning dowries and expecting the same, which exemplified the justice of Islamic treaties. It also clarifies that this was not considered a breach of the Hudaybiyyah treaty, rather a clarification or divine amendment that the Quraysh implicitly accepted. Indeed, sources like Ibn Hishām indicate the Quraysh said, “We never included women in that agreement,” and thus acquiesced. This demonstrates the Quran’s role in actively guiding socio-political arrangements of the early community.
From a broader perspective, by prohibiting intermarriage with polytheists, the Quran ensured a degree of separation between the Muslim community and the core pagan society of Mecca. Marriage is a powerful bond that merges families and cultures; by limiting it, the Quran effectively reduced the chances of syncretism and gradual assimilation of Muslims back into idolatrous norms. It helped consolidate a distinct Muslim identity. However, it’s crucial to note (as the Qur’an itself does through verse 5:5) that this separation was not between Muslims and all others, but specifically between monotheists and polytheists. The Quran did not advocate an unbridgeable gulf between Muslims and People of the Book (Jews/Christians), who were seen as having a closer affinity in faith. That is why a Muslim–Christian or Muslim–Jewish marriage was allowed – something unimaginable if the intent were to completely segregate Muslims from every other community. Likewise, certainly, the separation cannot be applied between different sects of Muslims; Sunnis and Shiʿa, for example, are all believers in the One God and the Prophet, so the notion of forbidding their intermarriage has no Qur’anic basis. The text that forbids al-mushrikīn in marriage simply does not apply to any who profess Islam’s tenets. Classical jurists unanimously upheld that any Muslim (regardless of sect or school) may marry any other Muslim; their shared shahāda is the defining criterion, unlike the barrier with idolatry.
In summary, verses 10–11 responded to a real-time legal challenge in the Prophet’s era with wisdom and justice. They protected the rights of new Muslim women, upheld the sanctity of Islamic marriage principles, and maintained equitable dealings with the non-Muslims. By so doing, the Quran by prohibiting marriage with polytheists clearly separated the two religious communities at a fundamental social level – a measure aimed at preserving the fledgling Islamic creed from dilution. At the same time, by permitting marriage with Jews and Christians, the Quran made clear that the divide is not an ethnic or total civilizational divide, but a theological one centered on pure monotheism. People of the Book, despite doctrinal differences, were acknowledged as part of the monotheistic family in a way mushrikīn were not. And notably, in verse 7, Allah had already hinted that some of those very mushrik enemies might soon join the believers – which indeed occurred, healing the rift. Thus even the separation due to marriage restrictions was, in principle, temporary for many individuals until they embraced Islam. The overarching aim was to ensure loyalty to faith and prevent conflict of belief within households, which could lead to immense personal strife. Modern observers can also appreciate that this rule allowed women converts to assert their freedom of religion in a patriarchal context: Islam voided the authority of a non-believing husband over a believing wife, freeing her to join the Muslim community. This was a progressive outcome for the woman who chose Islam.
With the case of the emigrant women settled by these commands, the surah moves finally to the formalities of the women’s pledge, which is addressed in the next verse.
Verses 12–13: The Pledge of Allegiance by Women, and Final Admonition
Translation (Abdel Haleem): “O Prophet, when believing women come to you to pledge allegiance to you, [promising] that they will not associate in worship anything as partner with God, nor steal, nor commit adultery (fornication), nor kill their children, nor produce any lie that they have invented between their hands and feet (i.e. falsely attribute infants to their husbands), nor disobey you in anything known to be rightful – then accept their allegiance and ask God to forgive them. God is indeed Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. O you who believe, do not take as allies a people with whom God is angry. They have despaired of the Hereafter just as the disbelievers have despaired of those [lying] in the graves.”
In verse 12, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is instructed on how to formally accept the pledge (bayʿah) of new Muslim women. This verse is often referred to as Bayʿat al-Nisāʾ (the Women’s Pledge) and parallels the pledge that Muslim men gave, albeit with slight differences in content and procedure. Historically, this verse was implemented most notably at the Conquest of Mecca (8 AH). After Mecca surrendered, the Prophet sat at Mount Ṣafā and received the oath of allegiance from the Quraysh men who embraced Islam. Following that, the women of Mecca also came forward to profess Islam and pledge obedience. Among them, famously, was Hind bint ʿUtba (the wife of Abū Sufyān), who had been a fierce enemy of the Prophet – even desecrating Ḥamza’s body at Uḥud – but now sought mercy and inclusion in the community. According to hadiths (e.g. in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book of Tafsīr for this verse), as the Prophet enumerated the conditions of the pledge, Hind (who was in disguise) interjected candid remarks: when the Prophet mentioned “they shall not steal,” Hind said, “O Messenger of God, my husband Abū Sufyān is miserly – I have been taking some of his money without him knowing. Is that sinful for me?” The Prophet replied, “That which you took for your and your children’s needs was fair.” When he said “they shall not kill their children,” Hind said, “We raised them when they were little, and you killed them on the day of Badr – so you are the one who knows best about killing them!” (Hind was alluding to losing her relatives in battle). The Prophet ﷺ, with a polite smile, did not retaliate and simply continued. When he mentioned “they shall not commit adultery,” Hind quipped, “Does a free woman ever commit adultery?!” (implying such behavior was beyond respectable women). ʿUmar reportedly chuckled at her audacity. Finally Hind revealed herself, apologizing for her past actions, and the Prophet forgave her. This anecdote, recorded in Sīra and Hadith literature, illustrates the atmosphere during the administration of the pledge: it was a serious covenant, but the Prophet handled even sharp comments with grace, focusing on the transformative commitment being made. The pledge was then taken – not by handshaking (the Prophet did not touch unrelated women), but verbally. It is said he declared “I have accepted your bayʿah” after they affirmed the conditions. This event demonstrated the welcoming of even former adversaries like Hind into Islam under the umbrella of these universal moral conditions.
The content of the women’s pledge as per verse 12 covers six key points:
- No Shirk (Polytheism) – “that they will not associate anything with God”. This anchors the pledge in pure monotheism. The foremost declaration is that these women renounce idolatry in all forms and will worship Allah alone. This corresponds to the first pillar of Islamic faith.
- No Theft – “that they will not steal.” Honesty and respect for property rights are required. This was significant in a society where women might not have independent wealth – it obliged them not to misappropriate wealth (be it from husbands, family, or others). Hind’s question to the Prophet clarifies that taking one’s due right in a household is different from theft, which implies illegality.
- No Zinā (Illicit Sex) – “nor commit adultery [or fornication].” Chastity is required. Whether married or unmarried, the women pledged to avoid any unlawful sexual relationships. This aligns with the Quranic prohibition of zinā (17:32) for all Muslims, male and female.
- No Infanticide – “nor kill their children.” This refers to the horrific pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide (waʾd), as well as any form of child-killing (for example out of poverty or shame). It was addressed specifically perhaps because some women, under social pressure, had acquiesced to or even carried out such practices. Islam categorically forbade it (Qur’an 81:8-9, 17:31), and here women entering Islam had to vow never to do this. The inclusion of this point in the women’s pledge is notable: it shows Islam saw mothers as the first line of protection for children – a mother who pledges not to kill her offspring (born or unborn) is embracing a new ethos of cherishing life.
- No Slander/Falsehood about Paternity – “nor produce any lie that they have invented between their hands and feet.” This idiom is understood to mean not attributing to their husbands children which are not actually their husbands’. In other words, a woman must not commit paternity fraud – such as bearing a child out of wedlock and then claiming it belongs to her lawful husband, or swapping babies, etc. It’s essentially an extension of the adultery clause, ensuring that lineage (nasab) is kept clear and truthful. Exegete Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī explains that “between their hands and feet” is a euphemism for the child they carry and give birth to. So this condition enjoins integrity in family matters and forbids one of the worst domestic deceits.
- No Disobedience in Maʿrūf – “nor disobey you (the Prophet) in what is right (maʿrūf).” This means the women pledged to obey the Prophet in all equitable and moral commands. Maʿrūf signifies what is recognized as good and proper in Islam. Practically, this covered following the Shari’ah and the Prophet’s directives. It does not imply absolute obedience to anything (hence the qualification “in good”); the Prophet, being divinely guided, would never command evil, so it is essentially saying: they will obey God’s law as conveyed by the Prophet. Some commentators also interpret this as a pledge to not engage in public acts against the Islamic community, such as helping its enemies or violating its laws – effectively loyalty to the nascent Islamic state of Medina.
Once the women agreed to these six points, the Prophet is told to “accept their pledge” and pray for their forgiveness. The Prophet’s duʿāʾ for their forgiveness (اللَّهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لَهُنَّ) would signify their entry into the purified community of Islam. God being “Forgiving and Merciful” at the end of the verse reassures that their past sins (and indeed, many were coming from lives of shirk or moral transgressions) would be forgiven upon this sincere pledge.
It is significant that the Quran includes a verse specifically about women’s bayʿah. This shows that women were regarded as independent moral agents who formally committed to Islam, not merely through their husbands or fathers. Early Islamic history records two instances of general women’s bayʿah: one at al-ʿAqabah (prior to Hijrah, a group of Yathrib women pledged to Islam in a similar manner) and the second at Mecca’s conquest (the context above). In both cases, the pledge is essentially the same as verse 12. Imam al-Bukhārī reports from ʿĀ’isha that when women would affirm this pledge, the Prophet would simply reply, “Go, for I have accepted your oath” – unlike men, he did not shake hands but the acceptance was verbal.
The conditions listed also mirror, to a large extent, the general teachings given to all Muslims. They resemble the contents of the “Pledge of ʿAqabah” that early converts from Medina took, which also included not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to kill children, and obey the Prophet in good (as per Sīra of Ibn Hishām). Thus, the pledge of women was not inferior; it was essentially the same moral covenant, with an extra emphasis on issues like infanticide that were especially pertinent. Ibn Kathīr in his tafsīr of this verse cites the hadith of ʿUbadah ibn al-Ṣāmit about the pledge (found in Bukhārī and Muslim) which was originally given by both men and women at different times, containing these points. The inclusion of “no shirk” at the top indicates that faith in one God is the primary basis for allegiance; all other points flow from that monotheistic commitment. In a way, verse 12 caps the entire surah’s theme: it brings the narrative from discussing loyalties and separations to an actual formal joining of the community by new entrants (in this case, women), under clear ethical guidelines.
Finally, verse 13 serves as a concluding warning that ties back to the opening. It says: “O you who believe! Do not ally yourselves (lā tatawallaw) with a people with whom Allah is angry – they have despaired of the Hereafter just as the disbelievers have despaired of those [buried] in the graves.” This is a strong admonition that echoes verse 1, completing the ring composition of the surah. The identity of “a people with whom God is angry” is not explicitly stated here, but the phrase often connotes stubborn rejecters of faith. Some commentators believed it referred to certain Jewish tribes who had shown persistent hostility (since the phrase “maghdūb ʿalayhim” – those God is angry with – elsewhere in the Quran and Islamic parlance can allude to Jews, cf. 1:7). Others interpret it generally as any enemy of God or hypocrites who incur divine wrath. In context, it likely includes the hardline Makkan pagans who remained obstinate (those who would eventually die in shirk), or possibly the Munāfiqūn (Medina’s hypocrites) who secretly aligned with disbelievers. The verse says these people have no hope in the afterlife, similar to how outright disbelievers despair about those in graves (meaning, just as an atheist or pagan expects nothing from the dead in terms of resurrection, these people themselves have no expectation of Heaven or mercy). In other words, they are so spiritually blinded that they see no future beyond this world – effectively giving up on salvation. To ally with such people would thus be aligning with a doomed mentality. This metaphor also perhaps implies that these enemies are morally “as good as dead” regarding the Hereafter; they have buried themselves in disbelief. Therefore, the believers are warned one last time to avoid intimate alliance or friendship with such utterly unrepentant rejecters. The earlier verse 7 had given hope that some enemies would soften and believe – and indeed many did. But verse 13 recognizes that some will not; some will persist until they earn God’s wrath fully. Those are the “people of Hell” that a believer must never support or prefer over the faithful.
Al-Qurṭubī comments on verse 13 that it means do not take as patrons those who have proven their enmity to the truth – it is the final emphasis on al-walāʾ (loyalty) to God and His friends, and al-barāʾ (dissociation) from His enemies. Maulana Mawdudi notes that the despair of the Hereafter suggests these disbelievers have no sense of accountability, making them dangerous allies for a believer who does believe in Judgment. The phrase also invokes a sombre imagery: just as the dead in graves are beyond hope from the living, these “living” enemies are beyond hope from God’s mercy due to their obduracy. Therefore, the believers should not be naive or complacent in dealing with such characters. Historically, after the conquest of Mecca, most of Arabia did embrace Islam (or at least submit politically), so open hostility waned. But this verse would still apply to any remaining pockets of antagonists, and by extension, it remains a timeless warning: a Muslim’s loyalty cannot lie with those who fundamentally reject God and righteousness to the extent of being “God’s enemies.”
The closing of the surah with this line brings the message full circle to the opening verses about Hatib. Whereas the surah began with a very specific incident of misplaced loyalty, it ends with a broad principle encapsulating the overall theme: never take the side of those who have no hope in God’s grace and who invite God’s anger. The believers’ social and spiritual bonds must always be guided by the criterion of faith and virtue.
Thematic Epilogue
Surah Al-Mumtahanah weaves together historical circumstance and enduring principle, illustrating how the nascent Muslim community was to navigate loyalty and separation in a time of entangled ties. The chapter’s central theme is the primacy of faith-based allegiance (walāʾ fil-dīn) over all other bonds. This principle is asserted through concrete scenarios: a Muslim’s secret correspondence with the enemy (Hatib’s case) is censured to underscore that one’s commitment to the Ummah and its mission must override even familial concerns. The example of Prophet Abraham provides a scriptural archetype for this hard choice – he parted ways with his own people to uphold monotheism, embodying the Qur’anic paradigm of loving for the sake of God and disavowing for the sake of God. Yet, the surah balances this hardline stance with remarkable ethical nuance and foresight. The prohibition of alliance is not absolute; it is conditioned on the others’ aggression. Verses 7–9 introduced a groundbreaking distinction between enemy combatants and peaceful non-Muslims, effectively laying the foundations of what we today call “religious tolerance” and good neighborly conduct. This distinction was critical in preventing a spiral of hatred – Muslims were not to treat every non-believer as an enemy, only those who demonstrated enmity. Consequently, when hostilities ceased (as with the truce of Ḥudaybiyyah), the Quran immediately encouraged kindness and fairness even to former foes. This forward-looking guidance allowed the Prophet and his companions to win over hearts; indeed, the “affection” that God “may place” between erstwhile enemies (60:7) came to fruition dramatically at the conquest of Mecca when the Prophet forgave his oppressors en masse.
Another major theme of this surah is the role of women in the community and their independent relationship to the faith. The very name Al-Mumtahanah, “The Woman who is Tested,” highlights that one of the chapter’s focal points is the treatment of female believers. The verses concerning the emigrant women established several progressive norms for that era: women have the right to choose Islam over their unbelieving husbands; their oath of faith is to be taken seriously and at face value (“Allah knows best their faith” – yet He commands, “test them” and then trust them if they say they are believers); and the community must facilitate their fresh start (by returning dowries and arranging new marriages for them if they wish). The Prophet’s implementation of these rules meant that women like Sabiya and Umm Kulthum – who in a tribal society might have been considered mere chattel of their husbands or families – were given refuge and dignity as sisters in faith, even at the expense of political concessions. Moreover, the Bayʿat al-Nisāʾ verse (60:12) underscores that women are direct participants in the Islamic covenant, pledging to the Prophet alongside men on core moral and theological commitments. This refutes any notion that women entered Islam only via male guardians; to the contrary, the Quran addressed the Prophet as the receiver of women’s pledges, and instructed him to formally acknowledge and pray for these women. Historically, this empowerment was evidenced when figures like Hind bint ʿUtba confronted the Prophet (with frank questions) as they took the pledge, and he engaged and accepted them. In an academic light, one can view this as the Quran institutionalizing women’s agency in the religious sphere during the formative period of Islam.
The legal directives in Surah 60 – particularly about marriage – also have deep social implications. By prohibiting intermarriage with polytheists, the Quran established a firm boundary that helped preserve a distinct Islamic identity. Marital and family bonds are one of the most powerful conduits of cultural and religious transmission; hence, disallowing marriages that bridge fundamentally opposed faith systems (Islam vs. idolatry) was a way of preventing syncretism and the erosion of the young Muslim community’s values. This rule in effect said: the line between monotheism and polytheism is a hard line that even love and romance cannot cross. From a sociological perspective, this contributed to forming a cohesive Muslim in-group and an outer boundary against the most incompatible out-group (paganism). However – and this is crucial – the Quran did not extend this taboo to all out-groups. By allowing marriage with People of the Book (5:5), it signaled a potential bridge between Muslims and other monotheistic communities, showing that the Quran’s separations were theologically nuanced rather than blanket communal segregation. As scholars like Zia Shah have pointed out, classical exegetes consistently differentiated “polytheists” from “Scriptuaries,” understanding that the former term in revelation did not include Jews and Christians. This has contemporary resonance: it illustrates that any sectarian divisions among Muslims, or xenophobic aversion to all non-Muslims, are unsupported by the Quran. The prohibition of intimacy applies only where core faith (tawḥīd) is denied. Indeed, some modern interpreters use this reasoning to advocate that a Muslim woman could marry a devout Christian or Jew – since the Qur’anic condition (belief in one God and no hostility to Islam) might be met – although traditional law remains opposed to that extension. Regardless of one’s stance on that, the larger point stands: the Quran’s objective was not to create a ghettoized community, but to draw a principled line that safeguarded the integrity of Islamic belief while still permitting select connections (like the food and marriage allowances) that could foster mutual understanding with other Abrahamic faiths. Historically, this played out in the ease with which Muslims, once in power, coexisted with and even assimilated People of the Book (through marriage, exchange of ideas, etc.), contrasted with the absolute bar on pagan idolatry which largely faded as most Arab polytheists converted by the Prophet’s death.
The final admonition (verse 13) provides a sober coda: even as Muslims practice justice and hold out hope for their enemies’ guidance, they must never be so naive as to ally with those entrenched in hatred of God. The phrase “people of God’s wrath” invokes the worst-case scenario of hardened unbelief. Throughout Islamic history, scholars extrapolated from this that Muslims should not take as patrons or intimates those who are actively undermining or attacking Islam. For example, in exegesis this was extended to warn against hypocrites who secretly sided with hostile disbelievers, as well as to later colonial or imperial forces perceived as anti-Islam. While misuse of this concept can lead to unjustified enmity, within the text it serves as a crucial boundary marker: it is the ethical red line that while kindness is due to all, walāʾ (allegiance, dependence, love that impacts one’s faith) cannot be given to an enemy of God. Theologically, this is tied to the concept of al-ḥubb fi-llāh wal-bughḍ fi-llāh – loving for the sake of God and disliking for the sake of God – which is rooted in prophetic teachings and finds Quranic grounding in verses like 60:4 and 60:13. It means a believer’s love or aversion is governed not by ego or tribe but by alignment with God’s pleasure or anger.
In conclusion, Surah Al-Mumtahanah offers a rich case study in the Quran’s approach to community identity, interfaith relations, and moral integrity under trial. Its instructions were directly tied to incidents around the Truce of Hudaybiyyah and its aftermath, giving us a window into how Quranic revelation responded to live events with lasting directives. We see the Quranic methodology of treating similar scenarios with consistent principles: Hatib’s incident and the matter of returning women both deal with potentially conflicting loyalties (to family, to treaty) versus loyalty to faith – and in each, the Quran asserts faith’s primacy but also upholds justice (Hatib is forgiven due to his intention and past service; the women’s ex-husbands are compensated for their loss). We also witness the Quran’s capacity to ease social tensions: by predicting reconciliation and endorsing kindness to peaceful pagans, it soothed the companions’ hearts and prepared them for the magnanimity that the Prophet would show. Thematically, the name “The Examined Woman” symbolizes how the nascent community itself was being tested – in their loyalties, in their treatment of converts, in their ability to follow divine guidance even when it modified human agreements. They emerged from these tests with success: the Muslims maintained principle over emotion (sending Abu Jandal back painfully but later welcoming him under better terms), they welcomed the emigrant women and upheld their rights, and they adhered to a code of conduct that won the admiration of even erstwhile enemies.
Academically speaking, Surah 60 exemplifies the fusion of the normative and the historical in Qur’anic exegesis: one cannot fully appreciate its rulings without knowing Hudaybiyyah and the social milieu, yet its verses transcend those events to inform Muslim conduct in analogous situations henceforth. The scholarly commentaries from al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Qurṭubī, etc., enrich our understanding by preserving the Asbāb al-Nuzūl (contexts of revelation) and Hadith narratives. They show, for example, that the “testing” of women was done via oath and that Umar himself was present when Hind bint ʿUtba came for her pledge, confirming the veracity of these accounts. Such details bridge the text and lived experience.
For today’s reader, Al-Mumtahanah offers timeless lessons in principled coexistence: be faithful to your values and community, but also be fair and kind to others; do not capitulate on core beliefs, but do not close the door of mercy and dialogue. It draws a clear line against those who would destroy you, but leaves the rest of humanity within reach of your compassion. In a world of complex interfaith relationships, these verses remind Muslims that firmness and fairness must go hand in hand. The believers are urged to neither assimilate uncritically with hostile forces nor isolate themselves unjustly from peaceful neighbors. Instead, they form a community that is confident in its identity, compassionate in character, and ultimately striving to turn enemies into friends through the transformative power of faith and good conduct – just as God turned the bitter Quraysh into brethren of the Prophet in the span of a few years. Such is the enduring legacy of Surah Al-Mumtahanah’s guidance, as relevant now as it was in the Prophet’s Medina.
Sources Cited: Quran 60:1-13; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr; Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (referenced in); Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Tafsīr (Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr’s story); Ma’āriful Qur’ān by Mufti Shafi Usmani; Tafhīm al-Qur’ān by Abul A‘lā Mawdudi; “The Qur’ān – Abdel Haleem Translation”; Farhad Shafti, “Revisiting the Qur’an on Interfaith Marriage”. All translations of Qur’anic verses are by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem.
If you would rather read in Microsoft Word file:
The Glorious Quran and Science 
Leave a comment