"And O my people! Give full measure and weight..."

(Meaning: Fulfill them both.) The benefit of explicitly stating this—even though the cessation required by the previous prohibition cannot be achieved without completion, making it implicitly required—is agreed upon according to the schools of thought that establish a prohibition of a thing as identical to a command for its opposite, or as entailing it by inclusion or implication. This is because the disagreement concerns the implication of the expression, not whether prohibition or obligation can be detached from the corresponding opposite.

One benefit is the distinct act of forbidding what they were upon of evil—namely, causing deficiency—as an exaggeration in desisting; then, the command for the opposite acts as an exaggeration in encouragement and an intimation that it is required both essentially and consequentially, while also intimating that desisting is consequential in reverse.

It is qualified by His, the Exalted’s, saying: "with justice" (meaning: with fairness, without addition or reduction). Then, it integrates the idea that what is required of completion is justice; this is why excess may sometimes be forbidden, as in the case of usurious goods. The statement of Al-Zamakhshari points to this, and its apparent meaning is to interpret "the measure and the scale" as that which is measured and weighed. Some interpret them in both instances as the two well-known instruments, and they explain "justice" as we have mentioned. Then he said: "Excess in measuring and weighing, even if it is a recommended favor, is forbidden in the instrument itself, just as deficiency is. Perhaps the excess is for use when receiving by measure, and the deficiency for use when giving by measure."

The benefit of the command to equalize the two instruments and adjust them after the prohibition of reducing them is to emphasize the urge toward fulfillment and the prevention of causing deficiency. It alerts them that merely desisting from reduction and deficiency is insufficient; rather, it is mandatory for them to reform what they have corrupted, which they had made a standard for their oppression and a law for their aggression. This carries the expression to its most immediate meaning, for interpreting it as the other meaning is figurative, as we have indicated.

Al-Fadil Al-Jalabi claimed that this command, coming after the previous prohibition, is not a case of repetition at all. He said: "The prohibition was against reducing the size of the measuring vessel and the weights of the scale, while the command to fulfill the measure and scale means their rights should not be diminished in measuring and weighing. This command follows the equalization of the measure and the scale to what is customary; thus, there is no repetition. How could it be otherwise? Even if it were a repetition for emphasis and hyperbole, the place of the 'wa' (and) would not exist due to the perfect connection between the two sentences." End quote.

This has been countered by the assertion that interpreting these two terms, which have been repeated in one of the two places, as having two differing meanings is contrary to the apparent meaning. Furthermore, repetition contains benefits that render it stronger than initiating a new clause, so one should not flee from it. As for the conjunction, the difference in the intended purposes of those two conjoined items renders them as if they were different, and therefore it is appropriate. The scholars of rhetoric have explicitly stated this regarding His, the Exalted’s, saying: "They inflict upon you the worst of torments and slaughter your sons." End quote. In the validity of what was countered first, there is reflection, so reflect upon it.

His, the Exalted’s, saying: "And do not deprive people of their belongings" potentially serves as a generalization after specification, for it includes quality and inferiority, as well as things that are not measured or weighed; thus, it is a closing supplement to what preceded. The same applies to His, the Exalted’s, saying: "And do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption."

For ‘athi (abuse) encompasses the diminution of rights and other things, as it is an expression for absolute corruption. Its verb is of the category of rama (to throw), sa‘a (to strive), and rada (to be pleased), appearing both with waw and ya as the radical. It is also possible that it is a prohibition against the deprivation of measured and weighed goods after the prohibition of reducing the standard and the command to fulfill it—meaning: do not deprive people of their belongings which they buy with these measures and scales because of the measures and scales being deficient and not balanced. Explicitly stating this prohibition after it was already known from the two previous prohibitions is to emphasize its importance and to encourage the fulfillment of rights after the intimidation and warning against reducing them.

Each of the two possibilities is held by some, and it is based on what you have learned regarding the aforementioned disagreement in interpreting what preceded. It has been said: The intended meaning of bakhas (deprivation) is the levy, such as taking tithes in the manner practiced today. ‘Athī refers to theft, highway robbery, and raids.

"Spreading corruption" (mufsidīn) is a state from the pronoun in "commit abuse" (ta‘thaw). The benefit of this is to exclude that which is intended for reform, as Al-Khidr, peace be upon him, did by killing the boy and damaging the boat; thus, it is a defining state. It is also said: The benefit is not the mentioned exclusion; rather, the meaning is "Do not commit abuse on the earth by diminishing rights, for example, while corrupting the interests of your religion and the affairs of your Hereafter." The result of this, as some have said, leads to providing the reason for the prohibition, as if it were said: Do not spread corruption on the earth, for it is corrupting to your religion and your Hereafter.