أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَٰتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُوا۟ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ · ٱلَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا۟ مِن دِيَٰرِهِم بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّآ أَن يَقُولُوا۟ رَبُّنَا ٱللَّهُ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ ٱللَّهِ ٱلنَّاسَ بَعْضَهُم بِبَعْضٍ لَّهُدِّمَتْ صَوَٰمِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَٰتٌ وَمَسَٰجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا ٱسْمُ ٱللَّهِ كَثِيرًا
Udhina li'lladhīna yuqātalūna bi-annahum ẓulimū · Wa inna'llāha ʿalā naṣrihim la-qadīr · Alladhīna ukhrijū min diyārihim bi-ghayri ḥaqqin illā an yaqūlū rabbuna'llāh · Wa law lā dafʿu'llāhi'n-nāsa baʿḍahum bi-baʿḍin la-huddimat ṣawāmiʿu wa biyaʿun wa ṣalawātun wa masājidu yudhkaru fīha'sma'llāhi kathīrā · Wa la-yanṣuranna'llāhu man yanṣuruh · Inna'llāha la-qawiyyun ʿazīz
"Permission has been given to those who are fought against, because they have been wronged. God is surely able to help them. They are those who have been driven from their homes without right, only for saying 'Our Lord is God'. Were it not that God repels some people by means of others, the cloisters, the churches, the synagogues and the mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned would have been pulled down. God will surely help whoever helps Him. God is strong, mighty."
The verb is passive: "permission has been given". Who gives the permission is not said — but its not being said is not a vagueness; it is a choice of style: the rest of the sentence already speaks of God.
And the verb's being passive says one thing more, and I record this as a grammatical observation: permission is something received, not something that arises from oneself. The sentence is not built in the form "they have a right".
This is the most decisive feature of word order in the verse and it must be recorded: the permission is given not to those who fight but to those who are fought against. The passive form of the verb fixes the position of the party.
A note on variant readings: it is transmitted that the verb is also read as يُقَاتِلُونَ (yuqātilūna, active — "those who fight"). I do not name a reader. The difference between the two readings is meaningful: the one indicates the party subjected to fighting, the other the party doing the fighting. I transmit the disagreement; I do not impose a preference.
Three verbs in succession are passive: udhina, yuqātalūna, ẓulimū. I record this as an observation about word order: throughout the sentence the party occupying the position of subject initiates no action of its own.
The exceptive construction is striking. The sentence says "they were driven out without right", and then adds an exception: illā an yaqūlū rabbuna'llāh.
In Arabic this is called istithnāʾ munqaṭiʿ: not a real exception but a construction close to irony. It means, that is, "their only offence was this".
I record this as a grammatical observation, and the lexicographers explain the construction in this way: the pattern says by the form of the sentence that the ground alleged cannot count as a ground.
This sentence occurred in the same words at al-Baqara 2/251 and was treated there. I rely on that treatment and repeat the observation recorded there:
The balance is established not by the dominance of a single power but by powers limiting one another. The verse does not say "God destroys the corrupters"; it says "He repels some people by means of others." The instrument, that is, is again man.
It was also recorded in the al-Baqara section that this verse occurs once more at al-Ḥajj 22/40. Now the difference between the two occurrences must be drawn out:
| al-Baqara 2/251 | al-Ḥajj 22/40 | |
|---|---|---|
| The condition | Law lā dafʿu'llāhi'n-nāsa baʿḍahum bi-baʿḍ | The same |
| The consequence (had it not been) | La-fasadati'l-arḍ — the earth would be corrupted | La-huddimat ṣawāmiʿu wa biyaʿun wa ṣalawātun wa masājid — the places of worship would be pulled down |
| The context | The ruling drawn from the story of David and Goliath | The ground of the permission to fight |
| The scope | The whole earth | Particular buildings |
al-Baqara lays down the general ruling: without the repelling, the earth would be corrupted. al-Ḥajj gives one concrete item of the same ruling: without the repelling, the places of worship would be pulled down.
al-Ḥajj thus draws out one example from within what al-Baqara calls "corruption". And the example chosen is striking: as the index of corruption, it is not crops, or trade, or life that is chosen, but places of worship.
The verse names four buildings. This is a list without parallel in the Qurʾān and needs careful treatment.
| Order | Word | What the sources give as its counterpart |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | صَوَامِع | Its singular ṣawmaʿa. The place of those who withdraw into seclusion — a cloister, a cell. Root ص-م-ع: to taper, to grow thin and rise; aṣmaʿ — pointed at the top |
| 2 | بِيَع | Its singular bīʿa. Explained as a church |
| 3 | صَلَوَات | The plural of ṣalāt. Explained as the Jews' place of worship (synagogue); the use of the word in this sense is recorded by the lexicographers |
| 4 | مَسَاجِد | Its singular masjid. The place where prostration is made |
A record is needed on the third item: it has been debated whether the word ṣalawāt is used here in the sense of "worship" or "place of worship". Since the list consists throughout of names of places, the sense of place comes to the fore, but both readings are transmitted. I do not impose a preference.
First: the order. The list runs from the least crowded to the most crowded: the single hermit's cell → the church → the synagogue → the mosque. This is an observation about word order.
Second: where the qualification stands. The verse names four buildings, then attaches a relative clause to all of them at once: yudhkaru fīha'sma'llāhi kathīrā — "in which the name of God is much mentioned".
That the qualification is attached to all four buildings has been debated by the lexicographers: some say the qualification belongs only to the last (masājid), others that it belongs to all four. I transmit both views; I do not impose a preference.
Third and most important — per the method (Method) I record it plainly:
No wholesale ruling about any religious community may be built on this list. The verse issues no verdict of truth about the systems of belief to which the named buildings belong; it neither endorses nor rejects them. What the verse says is one thing only: had the destruction not been prevented, all of these would have been pulled down.
And this commentary draws no present-day political conclusion from the verse. The verse states a principle; how the principle is to be applied to which event today is not the subject of this text and is not entered into here.
What can be drawn from the verse on the basis of the text is this, and I give it as my own reading: the permission is given not in order to attack but in order to stop a destruction. The construction of the sentence shows it: the conditional clause depicts a destruction (la-huddimat), and the repelling is set against that destruction.
لَّهُدِّمَتْ — root ه-د-م: to pull down, to bring a building down from its foundations. The verb is in Form II (tahdīm) and is passive: the pattern conveys intensity — being pulled down one by one, from end to end.