Tafsir of Al-Maa'oun 107:7

"And they withhold the Ma‘un," meaning Zakat (obligatory charity), as has been narrated from Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—and his son Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Zayd ibn Aslam, al-Dahhak, and Ikrimah. From this is the saying of the poet al-Ra'i:

O Caliph of the Merciful, we are a group of sincere people who bow [in prayer] morning and evening, Arabs who see that the right of Zakat from our wealth is a decree that has been revealed, A people who, regarding Islam, do not withhold their Ma‘un, and do not neglect the declaration of faith (Tahlil).

From Muhammad ibn Ka'b and al-Kalbi, it is known as "charity." A group of narrators has reported from Ibn Mas'ud that it refers to what people borrow from one another, such as a pot, an axe, and similar household goods. It has also been narrated from Ibn Abbas in a report transmitted by al-Diya in al-Mukhtarah, and by al-Hakim—who authenticated it—and al-Bayhaqi and others, who recorded several elevated (marfu') hadiths regarding it.

Withholding such items can be prohibited in the Sharia, such as when one borrows out of necessity, or it can be a sign of poor character, such as when one borrows when there is no necessity. According to what Ibn Abi Shaybah reported from al-Zuhri, Ma‘un means "wealth" in the dialect of the Quraish. Abu Ubaidah, al-Zajjaj, and al-Mubarrad said that in the Pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah), it referred to everything beneficial, whether little or much, while in Islam, it is intended to mean obedience.

There is a difference of opinion regarding its root. Qutrub said it is derived from al-ma‘n, meaning "a little thing," and they say la malahu ma‘n, meaning "he has no value or little thing." It is said its root is ma'unah (aid), where the alif is a substitute for the ha, making its morphological structure ma'al (originally ma'ala), similar to makram, making the mim extra. It is also said to be a passive participle from a'ana-yu'inu (to help), where the original was ma'wun; its middle radical was transposed with its first radical, becoming ma'un, then the waw was changed to an alif, becoming ma'un.

The fa in the Almighty’s saying, "So woe to those who pray," is for consequence (jaza'iyyah). The discourse ascends from that known thing [the neglect of the orphan] to a more powerful known thing. That is, if the repelling of the orphan and the failure to urge the feeding of the needy are of this stature, then what of the one who prays but is heedless of his prayer—which is the pillar of religion and the separator between faith and disbelief—and who commits hypocrisy in his deeds—which is a branch of polytheism—and who withholds the Zakat, which is the twin of prayer and the bridge of Islam? Or [what of the one who] withholds the lending of items that people customarily lend, let alone withholding the Zakat from his wealth? That [individual] is the sign of the denial that cannot be hidden, and the known entity that cannot be fulfilled. The objective is to emphasize the gravity of these vices with which many people are afflicted. Since these traits are among the marks of the denier of the [Day of] Judgment, it is incumbent upon the believing individual who affirms it to distance himself from them by wide margins. It becomes clear that the source of all disobedience is the denial of the [Day of] Judgment. "The denier" here refers to the genus, and the generic reference does not prevent it from applying to a specific instance, as is not hidden.

It is said that this refers to Abu Jahl, who was the guardian of an orphan; the orphan came to him, naked and asking for his own wealth, but he pushed him away in a vile manner. Ibn Jurayj said it refers to Abu Sufyan; he slaughtered a camel, and an orphan asked him for meat, but he struck him with his staff. It is also said to be al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, or al-'As ibn Wa'il, or 'Amr ibn 'A'idh, or a stingy hypocrite. According to all these views, he is a "known" entity.

In this case, the statement that those who are heedless of their prayers and those who are hypocrites are also "known" entities—the author of al-Kashf said this is not appropriate. Rather, it is a kind of digression derived from the described attribute, meaning the repelling of the orphan; the meaning being that if the repelling [of the orphan] has the status of being a mark of the denier, then what of the state of heedlessness of prayer and what follows it? For they are more severe than that. It was made a kind of digression because the discourse is essentially about the denial, not primarily about warning against repelling the orphan. The intent is the genus that applies to the collective. The claim that this is a forced interpretation is, as has been said, not clear.

It is as if it were said: "Inform me, what do you say about those who deny the Judgment and those who harm the orphan? Is their state better, or do they do something vile?" The intent is to establish the judgment of vileness following the style of the Almighty’s saying, "So will you not then desist?" Then it is said, "So woe to those who pray," meaning: once it is known that their state is vile, then woe to them. The word "those who pray" was placed in the position of the pronoun as an indication that, while being characterized by denial, they are also characterized by these [aforementioned] things.

Some have made the fa in "So woe" indicate causality, relating to the aforementioned context. This view requires that those who pray and the deniers are the same. Based on this, it is said that the intended ones are the hypocrites; indeed, it has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Imam Malik that this is the intended meaning. In al-Bahr, it is said that "those who [are] hypocritical" indicates this. It is also valid that "those who pray" refers collectively to those tasked with prayer, even if they are disbelievers who are not hypocrites, and their heedlessness of the prayer is their abandonment of it entirely. One must then accept the view that disbelievers are tasked with the branches of the law absolutely. Abu Hayyan objected to this view, stating that the grammatical construction is strange, as if one were to say, "I honored the one who visits me, so that is the one who..." The mind naturally assumes the demonstrative is in the nominative case as an initiation (mubtada'). Even if we assume it is in the accusative by way of conjunction, the structure would be, "I honored the one who visits me, so I honored that one who does good..." The demonstrative pronoun here is not as well-established as in fluent speech, for it is unnecessary; rather, the fluent phrasing would be, "I honored the one who visits me, so he does good..." It is said that the demonstrative here is inserted to indicate a distant level of evil and corruption. Contemplate this.

It is also permitted that the conjunction is of an entity upon an entity; thus, the inquiry is about the state of the deniers and the state of those who repel [the orphan]—is it better, or is it vile?—following the pattern previously mentioned. The author of al-Kashf scrutinized this, stating that it does not suit the context that the pronoun refers to both groups so that it could be placed in the position of "those who pray." So understand this.

Ibn Ishaq and al-Ashhab read yura'una with shortening (qasr) and stress on the hamza. In another report from Ibn Ishaq, he read it with shortening and without stress. And Allah—the Exalted—knows best.