قَالُوا مَا أَخْلَفْنَا مَوْعِدَكَ بِمَلْكِنَا (They said, "We did not back out of our own volition, of the promise made to you". - 20:87) The excuse which the Bani Isra'il offered for adopting the worship of the calf was that they did not do so of their own choice but merely followed Sas example.

وَلَـٰكِنَّا حُمِّلْنَا أَوْزَارً‌ا مِّن زِينَةِ الْقَوْمِ (But we were burdened with loads from the ornaments of the people. - 20:87) The word أَوْزَارً‌ا (awzar) is the plural of وزر (wizr) which means "burden". On the Day of Judgment everybody will carry his bundle of sins on his shoulders just as one carries a load; therefore the sin is also termed as 'wizr' (load). The word زینہ means ornament and قوم (the people) refers to the Egyptians from whom Bani Isra'il had borrowed the ornaments on the pretext of wearing them on their festival day, but which they did not return to their owners and carried with them on their flight from Egypt. These ornaments have been described as اوزار in the sense of "sins" because these were borrowed articles and by not returning them to their lawful owners the Bani Isra'il had committed a sin. From the hadith ul-futun which has been reproduced in detail in the earlier pages it would appear that Sayyidna Harun علیہ السلام warned them about their guilt and directed them to throw all the ornaments in a pit. According to some other versions it was Samiri who told them that by holding on to something which did not belong to them they were committing a sin and advised them to throw all the ornaments in a pit, which they did.

When does the property of infidels become lawful for the Muslims?

The non-Muslims who live in a Muslim state and abide by its laws they are known as Dhimmis. Such people as well as those infidels who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims remain in full control of their properties and it is not lawful for the Muslims to deprive them of any part of it. However, the properties of those infidels who are neither Dhimmis nor have any treaty with the Muslims, and who are described by the jurists as (an infidel belonging to enemy country) are lawful for the Muslims.

That being so why did Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) describe the ornaments borrowed by the Bani Isra'il from the Egyptians as a burden, meaning sin, and ordered them to throw everything in a pit? One explanation, which a majority of commentators have given is that the properties of infidels of an enemy state carried the same status as that of spoils of war. The law governing the spoils of war before the promulgation of the Islamic code was that while the Muslims could forcibly dispossess the infidels of their properties, they were forbidden to use them for their personal benefits. All the spoils of war (مالِ غنِمَت) thus acquired were collected and placed on a mound as offering where a fire from the sky - such as lightning - consumed them and this was a sign that Allah approved their war against the unbelievers. On the other hand if the fire did not consume offering (the spoils of war) it was considered that Allah did not approve their war so that the spoils were regarded as inauspicious and nobody ever approached them. Under the Islamic Shari'ah some of the old laws were relaxed and as a result Muslims were permitted to use the spoils of war for their own benefit. A Hadith on this issue appears in Sahih of Muslim. According to the laws, in force then, even if the ornaments borrowed by the Bani Isra'il from the Egyptians were considered as spoils of war, those could not have been allowed for the personal benefit of Bani Isra'il. That is why everything was thrown into the pit under the orders of Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) .

The research conducted by Imam Muhammad (رح) on this issue from a Juristic point of view is given in his book,: and its commentary by Sarakhsi. His conclusions are very weighty and closest to the truth, namely that the property of a harbi (infidel belonging to an enemy country) cannot be treated as spoils of war in every case. In order to be so treated, and thereby become lawful for the Muslims, it must have been acquired by sword in the course of a proper religious war (jihad). On the other hand the property of a harbi (a citizen of an enemy state) which has been acquired otherwise than in a religious war cannot be treated as spoils of war. Such properties are however termed as فَییء (fai' ) which can be used lawfully by the Muslims only with the consent of the owner. Taxes imposed by an Islamic state and paid by the infidels voluntarily fall in the definition of fai' and their use is permissible even though they have not been acquired in the course of a religious war.

The ornaments borrowed by the Bani Isra'il did not fall in either of these two categories. They could not be described as fai' because they were borrowed from the Egyptians who did not transfer their ownership to Bani Isra'il, nor could they be considered as spoils of war because they were not taken in the course of a religious war. Thus according to the Islamic Shari'ah the Bani Isra'il could not have lawfully used the ornaments for their personal benefit.

It is well-known that when the Holy Prophet ﷺ decided to migrate to Madinah, he had with him many valuables which the infidels of Arabia had entrusted to him for safe custody because they had full faith in his honesty and integrity and had, in recognition of these qualities, bestowed upon him the title of Amin ( اَمِین۔ honest). He was so solicitous about these deposits that he placed them in the hands of Sayyidna ` Ali ؓ and specifically directed him to restore them to their rightful owners before migrating to Madinah. This clearly shows that it is not lawful for Muslims to appropriate, for their personal use, the valuables belonging to non-Muslims.

The word فَقَذَفنٰھَا - means, "we cast away the ornaments". According to the hadtth-ul-futun (narrated earlier in detail) this was done under the orders of Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) while some other versions say that Samiri cajoled the Bani Isra'il into throwing the ornaments in the pit. It is quite possible that both these versions are true (as appears below).

فَكَذَٰلِكَ أَلْقَى السَّامِرِ‌يُّ (So did throw Samiri - 20:87) It appears from the hadith-ul-futun related by Sayyidna ` Abdullah Ibn ` Abbas ؓ (reported in earlier pages) that after the Bani Isra'il had thrown away all the ornaments, Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) ordered a big fire to be lit in the pit which melted them and left them in one solid piece. The decision as to the disposal of this precious metal was deferred till the return of Sayyidna Musa' (علیہ السلام) . After all this had happened Samiri approached Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) . He had something in his closed fists and sought permission to throw it in the pit. Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) thinking that he held some ornaments in his fists permitted him to cast them in the pit. Then Samiri said, "I will certainly throw it, but first I want you to pray to God that a wish which I have may be granted." Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) ، unaware of the evil which he planned, prayed to Allah in his behalf, and Samiri opened his hands and threw what he held in the pit. It was not ornaments but only dust from under the hoof marks of the horse of Jibra'il (علیہ السلام) which Samiri had collected after he observed that signs of life appeared in the dust under the hoof marks of the horse. Aided by Shaitan he now wished to put life into a calf by means of this dust. Nevertheless, whether it was the result of the miraculous property of the dust or whether it was a consequence of the prayer of Sayyidna Harun (علیہ السلام) in behalf of Samiri, the molten lump of gold and silver assumed the form of a calf and started making bovine sounds. There are other traditions also which relate that it was Samiri himself who persuaded the Bani Isra'il to throw the ornaments in the pit after which he carved the molten metal in the shape of a calf which had no life. He then sprinkled on it the dust from the hoof marks of the mount of Sayyidna Jibra'il (علیہ السلام) and it became a living calf. All these and similar stories which are based on Isra'ilite traditions have been related by Qurtubi in his commentary and by other writers as well. These traditions cannot be wholly relied upon, yet at the same time we do not possess sufficient ground to disprove them either.