We have been examining, one by one, verses in the Qur’an that are not used in their direct literal sense but are employed in an alternative meaning for a literary purpose.
Pledging allegiance to Allahﷻ ﷻ
Among such verses that require figurative understanding, an important one is the verse that speaks about the pledge known as Bay‘at ar-Riḍwān (the Pledge of Divine Pleasure) associated with the Prophetﷺ .
Before mentioning the verse, we must understand the historical event. Only then can we understand what the verse conveys.
The Prophetﷺ set out with a large group to perform ‘Umrah. He did not go alone. The Companions accompanied him in a large number for the purpose of performing ‘Umrah. On the way, they camped at a place called Hudaybiyyah. They did not immediately proceed to Makkah but stayed at Hudaybiyyah.
At that point, the Prophetﷺ had a concern: would the people of Makkah allow them to enter? It was possible that it could even lead to fighting. Anything could happen. With this concern, he gathered the Companions and took a pledge from them.
They had come for ‘Umrah. If they were prevented and matters escalated into confrontation, battle might occur. They themselves should not initiate fighting, especially in the sacred months and in the sacred land. Fighting is prohibited there. However, if the other side initiated aggression, then responding would be allowed. Allahﷻ ﷻ mentions in the Qur’an: if they violate the sanctity of the sacred month, then fighting in response is permitted.
So the rule is that one should not initiate fighting in the sacred precincts, but if attacked, self-defense is allowed.
Therefore, the Prophetﷺ took a pledge: if they are prevented and fighting becomes unavoidable, will you stand firm? The Companions pledged that they would stand firm to the end and would not retreat. Even if it meant giving their lives, they would not flee.
This pledge was taken under a tree. The Prophetﷺ sat beneath the tree, and one by one, the Companions placed their hands in his hand and pledged that they would not retreat if war occurred.
Regarding this pledge, Allahﷻ ﷻ revealed that He was pleased with those who pledged allegiance under the tree (Surah al-Fath 48:18). The word “radiya” (He was pleased) appears there. From that comes the term “Riḍwān” — meaning divine pleasure.
Because Allahﷻ ﷻ declared His pleasure with them, the pledge became known as Bay‘at ar-Riḍwān — the pledge with which Allahﷻ ﷻ was pleased.
The Prophetﷺ even said that those who participated in this pledge would enter Paradise.
This was a pledge of readiness to sacrifice their lives.
However, fighting did not occur. Instead, negotiations took place. A representative from the Quraysh came to discuss terms. They agreed that the Muslims would return that year and come back the next year for ‘Umrah. Conditions were set. This became known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
This treaty led to peace and opened doors for da‘wah (propagation of Islam). People could travel between Makkah and Madinah without hostility. Islam spread rapidly during this period. Allahﷻ ﷻ calls it a “clear victory.”
Now, before going further, there is another issue.
‘Uthman (RaliAllahﷻ ﷻu Anhu) had been sent by the Prophetﷺ to Makkah as a representative to inform them of the Muslims’ peaceful intention. He was delayed in returning, and a rumor spread that he had been killed.
Some historical books state that the pledge was taken to avenge ‘Uthman. I too have mentioned that in the past based on historical narrations.
However, this specific claim — that the pledge was taken specifically to avenge ‘Uthman — is found in historical works like Ibn Ishaq and others, but not in the rigorously authenticated hadith collections with chains of narration such as Bukhari, Muslim, or Tirmidhi.
Authentic hadith mention that a Messengerﷺ was sent but do not confirm that he was detained or killed. Nor do they clearly state that the pledge was specifically for revenge.
Rather, the pledge was taken in case they were prevented and fighting occurred — that they would not retreat.There are evidences supporting this understanding.
For example, a man hostile to ‘Uthman once questioned Ibn ‘Umar. He asked whether ‘Uthman fled during the Battle of Uhud. Ibn ‘Umar said yes. He asked whether ‘Uthman did not participate in Badr. Ibn ‘Umar said yes. He asked whether ‘Uthman was absent from Bay‘at ar-Riḍwān. Ibn ‘Umar said yes.
The man exclaimed “Allāhu Akbar!” thinking he had found faults.
Ibn ‘Umar then explained:At Uhud, many Companions retreated when the tide turned, and Allahﷻ ﷻ later revealed that He forgave them. Once Allahﷻ ﷻ forgave them, who are you to question it?
Regarding Badr, ‘Uthman stayed behind because the Prophetﷺ instructed him to care for his sick wife Ruqayyah (the Prophetﷺ ’s daughter), who was gravely ill and later passed away. The Prophetﷺ excused him.
As for Bay‘at ar-Riḍwān, ‘Uthman was absent because the Prophetﷺ had sent him on a mission. When the pledge was taken, the Prophetﷺ placed one of his own hands over the other and said, “This is for ‘Uthman.” He pledged on behalf of ‘Uthman.So ‘Uthman (RaliAllahﷻ ﷻu Anhu) was included.
If the pledge had been solely for avenging ‘Uthman, no one would question why he did not participate. Rather, the pledge was a general commitment: if fighting occurred due to being prevented, they would stand firm.
Additionally, killing envoys was against Arab custom. Even in pre-Islamic times, emissaries (Ambassadors) were not harmed. So there was no strong reason to assume they had killed him. Thus, Bay‘at ar-Riḍwān was a pledge of readiness to stand firm in defense if aggression occurred — not specifically a revenge pact.
This is the matter concerning that pledge.
The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ is above their hands
Now, regarding that pledge which they made — when Allahﷻ ﷻ speaks about this pledge, how does He describe it? Let us now go to the verse itself.
This pledge (bay‘ah) was a pledge made by the Companions to the Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ ﷺ. The Arabic word bay‘ah means an agreement, a covenant, a contract.
The verse (Surah Al-Fath 48:10) says:
“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you (O Prophetﷺ ) are actually pledging allegiance to Allahﷻ ﷻ.”
Look at the meaning carefully. Those who give bay‘ah to you, O Prophetﷺ — in reality, they are giving bay‘ah to Allahﷻ ﷻ. Why? Because they are not pledging for the Prophetﷺ as a person; they are pledging for the religion. If they pledge to sacrifice their lives for the religion, then they are pledging for Allahﷻ ﷻ. They are pledging to Allahﷻ ﷻ through His Messengerﷺ.
So Allahﷻ ﷻ says: Those who pledge to you are not truly pledging to you; they are pledging to Allahﷻ ﷻ. Allahﷻ ﷻ considers that pledge taken by the Prophetﷺ as a pledge made to Himself.
Then, comes the crucial phrase — this is where people misunderstand and go astray.
“Yadullāhi fawqa aydīhim” — “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ is above their hands.”
Now think: the Companions extend their hands, and the Messengerﷺ ﷺ places his hand over theirs. Whose hand is physically above? The Messengerﷺ’s hand. In reality, it is the Messengerﷺ’s hand above their hands. But Allahﷻ ﷻ says: “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ was above their hands.”
This is the key point.
Allahﷻ ﷻ says it was His Hand above their hands. Physically, what was there? The Prophetﷺ ’s hand. But Allahﷻ ﷻ calls it “My Hand.”
Some people seize upon this verse and say: Look! The Prophetﷺ is Allahﷻ ﷻ and Allahﷻ ﷻ is the Prophetﷺ . The Prophetﷺ placed his hand, and Allahﷻ ﷻ says that was My Hand. So Allahﷻ ﷻ called the Prophetﷺ ’s hand His own hand. Therefore, they argue, all divine qualities belong to the Prophetﷺ . When Allahﷻ ﷻ sends a Messengerﷺ, He grants him all His attributes. That is why He says “My Hand.”
They take this literally. If you take the literal meaning — “Allahﷻ ﷻ’s Hand was above their hands” — that would mean Allahﷻ ﷻ’s actual hand was physically there. But what people saw was the Prophetﷺ ’s hand.
So if Allahﷻ ﷻ says, “My Hand was above their hands,” while physically it was the Prophetﷺ ’s hand, then Allahﷻ ﷻ is referring to the Prophetﷺ ’s hand as His own hand.
From this they argue: you should not view the Prophetﷺ as merely human; he possessed divine nature. If Allahﷻ ﷻ calls his hand “My Hand,” then the whole of him must be divine.
But can we do that?
First, let us look at what is visible. The Companions’ hands were there. Above them was the Prophetﷺ ’s hand. This is the observable reality. No one saw Allahﷻ ﷻ’s hand. So if Allahﷻ ﷻ calls that hand “My Hand,” it must be understood in a literary sense. It cannot be literal.
Yet to further prove that it cannot be literal, let us examine other verses.
In Surah 6:50, Allahﷻ ﷻ tells the Prophetﷺ to declare: “I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of Allahﷻ ﷻ. Nor do I know the unseen. Nor do I say that I am an angel.”
If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ or possessed divine attributes, would he not know the unseen? Allahﷻ ﷻ commands him to publicly declare that he does not possess divine, does not know the unseen, and is not an angel.
If Allahﷻ ﷻ had granted him all divine qualities, why command him to deny them?
In Surah 10:49 and 7:188, Allahﷻ ﷻ instructs him to say: “I have no power to benefit or harm even myself except as Allahﷻ ﷻ wills.”
If he cannot benefit or harm himself, how can he be Allahﷻ ﷻ? If he were divine, he would have full power. Allahﷻ ﷻ commands him to declare that he does not. In the Battle of Uhud, the Prophetﷺ was severely injured. His teeth were broken, blood flowed, and he fainted. Rumors spread that he had died.
In that pain, he said: “How can a people succeed who have bloodied the face of their Prophetﷺ ?”
Immediately, Allahﷻ ﷻ revealed (3:128): “Laysa laka mina al-amri shay’” — “You have no authority in the matter.”
Allahﷻ ﷻ rebuked him. Victory and defeat are Allahﷻ ﷻ’s decision. Even if a Prophetﷺ is attacked, victory is not automatically denied to the attackers in worldly matters. Allahﷻ ﷻ alone decides. If the Prophetﷺ were Allahﷻ ﷻ, would Allahﷻ ﷻ rebuke him like this? Would He say, “You have no authority”?
Similarly, in Surah 6:17, Allahﷻ ﷻ says that if Allahﷻ ﷻ afflicts you with harm, none can remove it except Him. Even the Prophetﷺ cannot remove harm from himself unless Allahﷻ ﷻ wills.
In Surah 67:28, Allahﷻ ﷻ tells him to say: “If Allahﷻ ﷻ were to destroy me and those with me, or show mercy to us, who can protect the disbelievers from painful punishment?” If Allahﷻ ﷻ decides to destroy him, no one can save him.
Does that fit the idea that he is Allahﷻ ﷻ?
In Surah 10:99, Allahﷻ ﷻ says that if Allahﷻ ﷻ willed, all people would believe. Can you compel them to become believers? You cannot.So the Prophetﷺ does not have the authority to force faith.
In Surah 17:74-75, Allahﷻ ﷻ warns him: if We had not made you firm, you might have inclined slightly toward them, and if you had done so, We would have doubled your punishment.
If he were divine, would such a warning exist?
In Surah 4:80 and similar verses, Allahﷻ ﷻ says: if people turn away, you are not appointed as their guardian over them.
All these Qur’anic teachings show that the Prophetﷺ was a human Messengerﷺ without divine authority.
Therefore, when Allahﷻ ﷻ says “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ was above their hands,” it cannot mean literal divinity. The Prophetﷺ ’s hand was not Allahﷻ ﷻ’s hand in a literal sense. It must be understood in a figurative, literary sense — meaning Allahﷻ ﷻ’s support, approval, and authority were above their pledge.
He remained human. That is the only consistent understanding with the Qur’an as a whole.
Furthermore, look at some practical realities.
When the Prophetﷺ was in Makkah, he preached secretly in the beginning. Why did he preach secretly? If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, would he need to hide and be afraid? In the early days, he preached secretly in the house of Al-Arqam. Why secretly? Because they feared attacks from the enemies. Is one who fears attack Allahﷻ ﷻ? Fear is human. If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, he would stand openly and say, “Come, let us see.” But he feared, like a human being.
Likewise, when he was praying, they placed the entrails of a camel on his back. If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, could they have done that? Could filth be placed on him like that? If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, could they humiliate him in that way? But he was human. Just as you experience hardship, he experienced hardship.
When they attempted to kill him, he fled in fear. He hid here, hid there, and stayed in the cave for three days before taking an alternate route to Madinah. If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, could he not have miraculously transported himself? But no — he hid and took precautions.
From all this, it is clear that he did not possess divine qualities. He was a Messengerﷺ who conveyed the truth. To prove his Prophetﷺ hood, he performed certain miracles with Allahﷻ ﷻ’s permission. Those miracles were only for establishing Prophetﷺ hood, not signs of inherent divinity. At all other times, he experienced human limitations.
He fell ill many times. Once he fell from a horse and injured his leg. He took rest for a month and stayed inside his home. If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, would his leg break from falling off a horse? No — he was human.
In his final illness, he suffered severe fever. The Companions asked, “O Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ, are you suffering greatly?” He replied, “Yes, I suffer double what you suffer.” Why would double suffering come to him if he were divine? Could he not remove his own pain if he were Allahﷻ ﷻ?
He was given a son, Ibrahim(RaliAllahﷻ ﷻu Anhu), who died in infancy. The Prophetﷺ wept. He said, “O Allahﷻ ﷻ, I accept Your decree.” Could he bring his son back to life? No. He could only weep.
If he had divine attributes, why could he not revive his own child?
More importantly, when slander was spread against his wife Aisha (Mother of Believers), he did not know it was false until revelation came. He was distressed, asked others for their opinions, and even asked Aisha to go stay with her parents because of the social pressure. If he were Allahﷻ ﷻ, would he not know immediately that it was false? But he was human, and he did not know until revelation clarified the matter.
He even forgot in prayer. Once he prayed two rak‘ahs instead of four. The Companions pointed it out. He said, “I am only a human like you; I forget as you forget. If I forget, remind me.” Allahﷻ ﷻ does not forget — the Qur’an says your Lord does not forget. But the Prophetﷺ forgot, because he was human.
He also said that when people bring disputes to him, he judges based on what he hears. One person may argue better though he is wrong. He said: if I mistakenly give someone what is not rightfully his, he is only taking a portion of Hellfire. He did not say he could always detect the truth by divine knowledge. He admitted he could be deceived in judgment — a human trait.
There are countless such examples in his life.
Yet people take only this one phrase — “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ was above their hands” — and give it a literal meaning.
But the reality is clear: the hand physically present was the Prophetﷺ ’s hand. Even from his biography, he remained human until the end. Therefore, the phrase must be understood as meaning Allahﷻ ﷻ’s support, mercy, closeness, and approval were above their pledge.
We use similar expressions. When we say someone is our “right hand,” we mean closeness and support, not literal transformation.
Because people insisted on literal meaning, a group went astray and began attributing divine qualities to the Prophetﷺ , and even to saints after him. They build arguments from such verses and fabricate supporting ideas.
The error is insisting on literal meaning everywhere. Where literal meaning fits, accept it. Where it does not fit, interpret appropriately. Otherwise, you go astray.
Now, another issue arises from this verse.
Some groups misuse this verse to justify taking bay‘ah (pledges) to sheikhs. They say: just as pledging to the Prophetﷺ is pledging to Allahﷻ ﷻ, pledging to a sheikh is pledging to Allahﷻ ﷻ.
But is the sheikh a Messengerﷺ? Was he sent as a representative by Allahﷻ ﷻ? When someone pledges to a Messengerﷺ, it is like pledging to the one who sent him. But a sheikh is not Allahﷻ ﷻ’s appointed Messengerﷺ.
The verse refers specifically to the Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ. It is his unique status. After the Prophetﷺ , people pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr as leader — but that was political leadership, not unconditional spiritual submission. The Companions never pledged to anyone else in the same way they pledged to the Prophetﷺ .
There is a hadith in Bukhari (7204) where a Companion said he pledged to obey the Prophetﷺ in everything. The Prophetﷺ corrected him and said: add “as much as I am able.” Even in pledging to the Prophetﷺ , obedience was within one’s ability.
So how can people today pledge absolute obedience to a sheikh?
Some groups make disciples (murids) surrender their minds entirely. They compare the disciple to a corpse in the hands of the washer — completely passive. If the sheikh says bend, bend; stand, stand; even commit wrongdoing, they obey.
They claim that after pledging to the sheikh, he monitors your spirituality, implants sincerity in your heart, guarantees Paradise, even gives written certificates to bury with you claiming you are destined for Paradise.
These are real practices. All this stems from misunderstanding this verse.
The pledge mentioned in the Qur’an was specific to the Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ. It does not justify blind allegiance to religious leaders. The Prophetﷺ himself said that if he swears an oath and later sees something better, he breaks the oath and offers expiation. Even oaths to Allahﷻ ﷻ can be reconsidered if something better is found.
So, if someone unknowingly made an invalid pledge, they should abandon it rather than live enslaved by it. The Sufi orders (tariqas) institutionalize this system of pledges. They create hierarchical obedience based on a misunderstanding of this verse.
But the Prophetﷺ never claimed control over people’s inner states. He never claimed divine authority. Therefore, the phrase “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ was above their hands” must be understood as a literary expression of Allahﷻ ﷻ’s approval and support — not literal divinity. That is the correct understanding.
Take the incident of Abu Talib at the time of his death.
Who was Abu Talib? He was the Prophetﷺ ’s uncle, like a father to him. He supported Islam greatly, yet he did not accept Islam. He raised the Prophetﷺ from childhood, taught him trade, and was the reason he became established and secure in life. He played a major role in shaping him. But despite all that, Abu Talib did not accept Islam.
When death approached him, the Prophetﷺ went and sat beside him. Abu Jahl was also present. The Prophetﷺ said to him: “Uncle, accept Islam. Say the testimony. I will intercede for you before Allahﷻ ﷻ.”
He urged him with deep concern and love.
But Abu Jahl said: “Will you abandon the religion of Abdul Muttalib?” Abu Lahab also encouraged him to remain upon his forefathers’ religion. They kept repeating this from both sides. In the end, Abu Talib said: “I will die upon the religion of Abdul Muttalib.” The Prophetﷺ was deeply saddened. He had tried sincerely. Yet he could not make him accept Islam.
Then Allahﷻ ﷻ revealed: “Indeed, you cannot guide whom you love, but Allahﷻ ﷻ guides whom He wills.” (Qur’an 28:56)
So the Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ himself could not guide even his beloved uncle, despite his concern and effort. Yet today some people claim that a sheikh, just by looking at you, can change your heart, remove your bad qualities, and put you on the straight path. If the Messengerﷺ of Allahﷻ ﷻ could not force guidance even for his own uncle, how can a sheikh do it?
This incident is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 3884) and elsewhere.
Another important example: During the pledge of Ridwan, when the Companions gave bay‘ah, Uthman (RaliAllahﷻ u Anhu) was absent because the Prophetﷺ had sent him on a mission. When they pledged, the Prophetﷺ placed one of his hands over the other and said: “This is the hand of Uthman.” He pledged on behalf of Uthman.
Now what does that mean? Did the Prophetﷺ become Uthman? Did Uthman merge into him?
Physically, it was the Prophetﷺ ’s hand. Uthman’s hand was not there at all. Yet he said, “This is Uthman’s hand.” How do you understand that? In the same way, understand “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ is above their hands.” When the Prophetﷺ said “This is Uthman’s hand,” it meant he was acting as his representative. It does not mean literal transformation.
So, when Allahﷻ ﷻ says “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ was above their hands,” it must be understood in that kind of representative, figurative sense — not literal physical meaning. People are misusing this verse to justify tariqa systems and blind obedience.
Now another example of figurative language: Allahﷻ ﷻ says in Surah Al-Furqan (25:47) that He made the night as a garment for you.
Is the night literally clothing? Can you wear the night?
Night is not a material object you can wrap around yourself. But what does clothing do? It covers you, protects modesty. Similarly, night covers you in darkness, giving privacy. So Allahﷻ ﷻ calls night a garment because of resemblance in function — not literal meaning.
Likewise, “The Hand of Allahﷻ ﷻ” is not literal in that context.