فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلْأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُوا۟ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ
Fa-idha'nsalakha'l-ashhuru'l-ḥurumu fa'qtulu'l-mushrikīna ḥaythu wajadtumūhum wa khudhūhum wa'ḥṣurūhum wa'qʿudū lahum kulla marṣad; fa-in tābū wa aqāmu'l-ṣalāta wa ātawu'l-zakāta fa-khallū sabīlahum; inna'llāha ghafūrun raḥīm
"When the sacred months have passed, kill the mushrikūn wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of watch. And if they turn back, and keep up the prayer, and give the alms, then leave their way open to them. God is forgiving, merciful."
This is one of the verses of the Qurʾān most often cut away from its context. Per the method (Method) I shall do five things here, in order, and go beyond none of them:
1. I shall show how the sentence is built. 2. I shall analyse the words. 3. I shall give, all together, the limits the verse lays down within itself and within the block. 4. I shall convey the discussion in the classical commentaries — the claim about the "verse of the sword" and those who reject it — as a neutral table of disagreement. 5. I shall issue no legal ruling, impose no preference, and make no link to any present-day event.
فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلْأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ — fa-idha'nsalakha'l-ashhuru'l-ḥurum: "when the sacred months have passed."
This is the very structure treated in Muḥammad at 47/4 — there it was fa-idhā laqītum (when you meet), and it was recorded there: the apodosis of a conditional sentence is not in force until the condition is realised. The same note holds here.
And the condition here is a condition of time: the verse ties its own ruling to the ending of a determinate period. That period is the four months declared in verse 2.
`` verse 1 — the declaration (barāʾa) verse 2 — the period (four months, free movement) verse 3 — the public announcement + the door of turning back verse 4 — the exception of those who did not break the treaty verse 5 — the ruling at the end of the period verse 6 — the protection of the one who seeks refuge ``
The fifth verse is the fifth link in this chain. Read on its own, the first four links of the chain disappear.
The concrete sense of the root: to flay a hide, to separate it from the body. Salkh — the flaying of a hide; insalakha (Form VII, reflexive) — to slip out, to be peeled away and separated.
This word occurred in Yāsīn at 36/37: wa āyatun lahumu'l-laylu naslakhu minhu'l-nahār — "We peel the day off the night."
The choice of verb is worth recording, and I give it as an observation: the verse does not say "when the months end"; it says "when the months have slipped away". The picture in the root is of a thing being separated from a body. Time, that is, is described as a skin peeled off.
"The sacred months" — they will be defined in verse 36 of the sūra: minhā arbaʿatun ḥurum — four of the twelve months. They will be treated separately at that verse.
The debate here must be recorded: in the classical commentaries it has been disputed whether this expression means the four months declared in verse 2 or the known sacred months of the year. I convey the disagreement and impose no preference:
| View | What al-ashhuru'l-ḥurum is | Cited as ground |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The four-month period of verse 2 | The context; the link between the two verses |
| 2 | The four sacred months of the year | The al- being that of the known referent (maʿhūd) |
| Verb | Root | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| ٱقْتُلُوا۟ | ق-ت-ل | Kill |
| خُذُوهُمْ | أ-خ-ذ | Seize — take captive |
| ٱحْصُرُوهُمْ | ح-ص-ر | Besiege — narrow their room to move |
| ٱقْعُدُوا۟ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ | ق-ع-د / ر-ص-د | Lie in wait at the places of watch |
Three of the four verbs are not killing. Akhdh (seizing), ḥaṣr (besieging) and quʿūd ʿalā marṣad (keeping watch) — all three are verbs of bringing under control.
The root ر-ص-د: to watch, to wait. Marṣad — a place of watch, the head of a pass. The word was treated in al-Jinn at 72/9 and 72/27 (raṣadā).
I record this as an observation: the enumeration of these four verbs together shows that the scene is a field of conflict — besieging, holding a pass and taking captives are acts of war. And the measure recorded in Muḥammad at 47/4 holds here too: the kind of the verbs makes plain the kind of the scene.
The root خ-ل-و: to be empty, to clear. Khallū sabīlahum — "clear their road", that is, set them free, open the way before them.
This is the last sentence of the verse, and it is a command to let go. And the verse closes with ghafūrun raḥīm (forgiving, merciful).
I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the verse's own sequence: one and the same verse carries both the harshest command and the condition on which that command ends. To read the verse as the "verse of the sword" and leave off its last sentence is to read half of it.
Every one of the items below is in the wording of the text. Not one is a note brought in from outside:
| # | Limit | Its ground in the wording |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The one addressed is a determinate party with whom a treaty had been made | 1: ila'lladhīna ʿāhadtum mina'l-mushrikīn |
| 2 | The particle min states a partitive — not the whole of a whole | 1: mina'l-mushrikīn |
| 3 | The ruling is tied to a period; it does not take effect immediately | 2: arbaʿata ashhur · 5: fa-idha'nsalakha |
| 4 | Throughout the period there is free movement | 2: fa-sīḥū fi'l-arḍ |
| 5 | Those who did not break their treaty are outside the ruling | 4: illa'lladhīna … lam yanquṣūkum |
| 6 | With those who did not break it, the treaty is completed to the end of its term | 4: fa-atimmū ilayhim ʿahdahum ilā muddatihim |
| 7 | One who seeks refuge is protected and brought to a place of safety | 6: fa-ajirhu … thumma ablighhu maʾmanah |
| 8 | The ruling ends with turning back | 5: fa-in tābū … fa-khallū sabīlahum |
| 9 | Most of the commands are verbs not of killing but of bringing under control | 5: khudhūhum, uḥṣurūhum, uqʿudū |
| 10 | The verse closes with a name of forgiveness | 5: ghafūrun raḥīm |
| 11 | In verse 12 the condition of fighting is the breaking of the oath | 12: wa in nakathū aymānahum |
| 12 | In verse 13 the ground is that the other side began it | 13: wa hum badaʾūkum awwala marra |
And the measure recorded in Muḥammad holds here too and is worth repeating: to "cut a verse away from its context" means exactly this — to drop the first, third, fifth and seventh of the items above and take the middle sentence on its own. In that state the verse says something else; but what it says is no longer what the verse says.
In the classical literature of exegesis and legal theory this verse has been called āyat al-sayf ("the verse of the sword"), and some scholars have argued that it abrogates the verses of peace, pardon and forbearance in the Qurʾān. There have also been those who rejected this.
| View | Its claim | Cited as ground | Cited as the other side's objection |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Those who count it abrogating | The verse has lifted the earlier verses of forbearance and peace | The seemingly unrestricted wording of the verse; the ruling's coming at a late period | The verse is built within itself as conditional and time-bound; wording alone is not enough for abrogation |
| B. Those who limit the claim of abrogation | What the verse abrogates is only the earlier rulings about waiting, and only in respect of those who break a treaty | The qualification alladhīna ʿāhadtum in verses 1 and 4 | On this view the name "verse of the sword" is misleading |
| C. Those who reject the claim of abrogation | The verse is not a verse of abrogation; it regulates a determinate situation | The presence of verses 4 and 6 in the same block; the fact that 8/61 (wa in janaḥū li'l-salmi fa'jnaḥ lahā) remains in force | — |
| D. Those who narrow the scope of the concept of abrogation | In the early period the word "abrogation" was used more broadly than it is today; specification and qualification too were called "abrogation" | The history of the term in the literature of legal theory | — |
No preference is adopted in this commentary. What is to be recorded is this, and the same was recorded in Muḥammad: the debate itself shows that the verse was not read as a general ruling standing alone and unconditional. The classical tradition has always handled this verse together with other verses. To take the verse on its own and present it as a general ruling is the exact opposite of what that tradition did.
And one further limit: the question of abrogation is a debate in legal theory, and both its definition and its scope differ between the schools. This commentary does not enter that debate and takes no side in it.
Here I must be careful. The most mistaken thing that could be written under the heading "what this says to the present" for this verse is to tie it to some present-day conflict, some party, or some group. I shall not do that.
The harshest sentence of a text is read together with the qualifications that the text itself lays down. This block carries twelve separate qualifications, and all of them are within the text. To take the harsh sentence and leave the qualifications is not reading but selection. This measure holds not only for this verse but for every text.