Tafsir of Ibraheem 14:31

Then, when He, the Exalted, threatened the disbelievers and pointed to their immersion in fleeting pleasures, He commanded His Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to command His chosen servants to perform physical and financial worship. Thus, the Exalted said: "Say to My servants who have believed"—He specified them by attributing them to Himself, the Exalted, to elevate and honor them, and to alert [others] that they are the ones who uphold the duties of servitude and fulfill its rights. The omission of the conjunction between the two commands serves to signal the disparity of their states, by way of threat and otherwise.

The object of the verb "say," according to what Al-Mubarrad, Al-Akhfash, and Al-Mazini held, is omitted, indicated by [the verb] "establish" (yuqīmū). That is: Say to them, "Establish prayer and spend..." — "that they may establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them..."

The verb mentioned [in the text] is in the jussive mood, being—in their view—the response to the imperative "Say." It has been objected that it does not follow from the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) statement "Establish and spend" that they will do so. The response is that those addressed are the "chosen" ones, and when they are commanded, they obey. Hence, they said: This indicates the perfection of their compliance and the extremity of their hastening to obey. This is supported by the omission of the [stated] object, as it implies that they do so even without a command. However, the objection is based on the assumption that a complete conditional structure is required here, which [Ibn Attiyah] rejected. Ibn Attiyah made "say" mean "convey the legislation," with the jussive being the response to that [conveyance], which is close to what was previously mentioned.

It is reported from Abu Ali, and attributed to Al-Mubarrad, that the jussive is the response to the omitted command implied by "Say." Abu al-Baqa’ criticized this on two grounds: First, the response to a conditional must differ from the conditional verb, either in the action, the subject, or both; if they are identical, it is invalid, like saying "Stand, [and you will] stand," since the estimated [meaning] here would be "If they establish, they establish." Second, the implied command is for direct address, while the mentioned verb is in the third-person form, which is an error when the subject is the same. It was retorted against this: The first point is close, but the second is nothing, for it is permissible to say "Tell your servant, 'Obey me, [and he will] obey you,'" even if it shifts from address to the third person in consideration of the circumstance.

From Abu Ali and a group [of scholars], it is held that "that they may establish" (yuqīmū) is a declarative statement in the sense of a command, functioning as the object of the verb "say." This was refuted by the [claim of the] omission of the nun (in yuqīmū), as the nun is not omitted in such a structure. An example is the Exalted's saying: "Shall I guide you to a trade that will save you..." up to His saying: "...you believe," since the intent is "Believe." The argument that since it is in the sense of a command it is built upon the omission of the nun—just as the definite noun in a vocative is built upon the damma (e.g., Ya Zayd) by analogy to qīla and ba'da—is a line of reasoning that is hardly attended to, as it regards the word's form rather than its function.

Al-Kisa'i, Al-Zajjaj, and a group held that the object of the verb is in the jussive mood due to an implicit lam of command (i.e., "Let them establish and let them spend"), similar to the verse of Al-A'sha: "Muhammad, let your soul be a ransom for every soul if you fear an affair..." You know that estimating a jazim (a jussive-causing particle) is weaker than estimating a preposition, except that the presence of "say" takes its place, just as frequent usage in commanding the addressee takes the place of that [explicit particle]. When something becomes frequent in a place or the indication of it is confirmed, its omission is permissible, such as the omission of the preposition in anna when it is in the sense of min ayna (from where). With the "substitution" we have mentioned, this differs from the example in the poem, so their explicit statement that the omission there is by necessity does not harm us.

Ibn Malik held that the omission of this lam falls into several categories: rare, frequent, and intermediate. "Frequent" is when it is preceded by a command in the form of an imperative, as in the verse. "Intermediate" is when it is preceded by a speech that is not an imperative, such as: "I said to the gatekeeper at his door, '[Let him] permit me, for I am its protector and neighbor.'" "Rare" is everything else. The outward meaning of Al-Kashf favors this view, where the researcher says: "The meaning is clearer in this case, due to the [difficulty of] the implied [elements] that are otherwise required." The restriction of the response to the Exalted's saying: "before there comes a day..." up to "nor friendship," does not hold much value; rather, what is appropriate is to restrict the command itself to it. Ibn Attiyah said: "It appears that the object of the saying is [the phrase] 'Allah who...' etc." It is not hidden that this results in fragmentation, and it is not valid for "establish" (yuqīmū) to be in the jussive as a response to the command, because "Allah who..." does not entail establishing prayer and spending, except through a very remote estimation.

Moreover, "prayer" is said to encompass every prayer, whether obligatory or voluntary. Ibn Abbas explained it as the obligatory prayer. He explained "spending" as the Zakat of wealth. It is not hidden from you that the Zakat of wealth was only obligated in the second year of the Hijra after the Sadaqat al-Fitr, and that this entire Surah is Meccan according to the majority, and this verse is not one of the [rarely cited Medinan] verses according to some. Furthermore, if this commanded act in the verse was not commanded before, the command is manifest; if it was commanded before, the command is for continuity. So, verify this and do not be heedless.

"Secretly and publicly": These are in the accusative as masdar (verbal nouns), either from the estimated command or from the mentioned verb, according to the view of Al-Kisa'i and his followers, or [based on] what precedes it. The original is "spending secretly and spending publicly," so the noun was omitted and the genitive became its substitute, taking its accusative case. It is also permissible that the original was "a secret spending and a public spending," so the qualified noun was omitted and its adjective became its substitute. It is also possible that they are in the accusative as a state (hal), either by interpreting them as derivatives or by estimating a preposition, i.e., "being secret and public," or "possessors of secrecy and publicity," or as a temporal/locative adverb, i.e., "in secret and in public." The ruling on secret and public spending has already been discussed.

"Before there comes a day in which there is no trading"—in which the negligent person can buy what would compensate for his negligence or ransom his own soul. The goal, as some researchers have said, is to deny the contract of exchange entirely. The specification of "trading" is for conciseness alongside exaggeration in denying the contract, for the absence of trading entails the absence of buying in the most eloquent way. Its absence may be conceived even if an offer is made by the seller. Others have said: "Trading," just as it is used for giving the commodity and taking the price—which is the common meaning—is also used for giving the price and taking the commodity, which is the meaning of buying. This is how the Prophet’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement came: "No one of you should sell over the sale of his brother." There is no barrier to intending both meanings here. If we say that a word sharing multiple meanings may be used for both simultaneously—as the Shafi'is argue, or [at least] in negation, as Ibn al-Humam argues—then that is it; otherwise, we would need to resort to the generality of metaphor. It is as if it were said: "There is no exchange in it."

"Nor friendship" (khilāl): This means opposition (or association). As Abu Ubayda and others said, it is the masdar (verbal noun) of khālaltuhu (I associated with him), like al-khilāl. Al-Akhfash said: It is the plural of khalīl (friend), like akhlā' and akhilla. The intent is one: it is a negation that there is a friend there who can be of benefit, by interceding for him or overlooking what he might be ransomed with. It is possible the meaning is "before there comes a day in which there is no benefit from what they are habituated to engaging in, such as trading and association," and there is no benefit in those. Rather, the benefit and support in it is through spending for the sake of Allah the Exalted. According to the first [view], what is negated is trading and friendship in the Hereafter. According to this [latter] view, the intent is to negate the trading and the friends who were in the world, in the sense of denying benefit from them. "In it" (fīhi) is an adverb for the "benefit" that is estimated, as we pointed out. There is no contradiction between this and the Exalted's saying: "Close friends, that Day, will be enemies to each other, except the righteous," where He affirmed khilāla (association) and the absence of enmity among the righteous. For the intent here, as it is said, is to deny the khilāla that is beneficial in itself to rectify what has been missed, and it is not mentioned in that [other] verse that the righteous rectify for one another what has been missed.

It is also said in reconciling the two verses: the intent is the negation of association due to the inclination of natural temperament and the desire of the self. That [other] association occurs between the righteous for the sake of Allah the Exalted. Even if one argues that the exception from an affirmation does not necessitate a negation, and even if one grants that it necessitates it, the negation of enmity does not necessitate khilāla. You see how it is. Similar to this is what was said: that the affirmation and negation are according to the situations and contexts. As several have asserted, it relates to the estimated command, and [others] related it to the mentioned verb—those who hold the view of Al-Kisa'i and his followers, or even some of those who hold a different view, though it is not free from some issues.

The masculine singular pronoun for the arrival of that day, according to what is in Irshad al-'Aql al-Salim, is to emphasize the content of the command, because both the loss of intercession and the means to compensate for negligence—whether through compensation or charity—and the cessation of the effects of the trading and friendships that occurred in the world and the lack of benefit from them are among the strongest incentives to bring forth what remains [of value], whose fruits last and whose benefits endure, [namely] spending in the path of Allah. Or, because the hoarding of wealth and the refusal to spend it occurs, for the most part, for the sake of trades and gift-giving. Since that is not possible in the Hereafter, there is no reason to hoard it until the time of death. The specification of the command to spend with that emphasis is because of the soul's inclination toward wealth and its inherent love and greed for it. It also suggests that it is not far-fetched that it is an emphasis on the command to establish prayer as well, because the neglect of prayer is often due to preoccupation with trading and associations, as in the Exalted's saying: "And when they saw a transaction or a diversion, they dispersed to it." You know the remoteness of this regarding the wording, based on the attachment of "secretly and publicly" to the command to spend.

Furthermore, what was mentioned of the two views in the verse is what some researchers have mentioned. Al-Zamakhshari limited himself to the second view. His words in establishing it are apparent that the benefit of the restriction is the urging to spend, just as he explained in Al-Kashf. In establishing the outcome, it states that the Exalted's saying: "in which there is no trading nor friendship" means there is no benefit from them, which is a metonymy for the benefit of what corresponds to them, which is what is spent for the sake of Allah. It is an urging to spend for the sake of the Exalted, as if it were said: "Let them spend for Him before there comes a day in which the one who spent for Him benefits, and regret will not benefit the one who withheld." The shift to what is in the sublime arrangement is to signify exclusivity, and that this alone is what provides benefit, and to signify the opposition between what benefits in the immediate and what benefits in the future.

In the verse of Al-Baqarah: "before there comes a day in which there is no trading nor friendship," it is mentioned that the meaning is "before there comes a day in which you will not be able to compensate for what you missed of spending, because there is no trading so that you could buy what you spend, nor friendship so that your friends could overlook it for you." The researcher explained the aspect of the specialization of each of the two meanings to its place, while both are valid in both places, by saying that the first [verse] is a general address, so the urging to spend was absolute, and presenting that spending itself is what is sought—so it should be seized before a day comes in which it is missed and the seeker does not attain it—is what fits the requirement of the situation. And that the second [in Ibrahim] was specialized for the "chosen" ones, so what fits the situation is inciting them to what they are [already] upon—of spending—so that they continue upon it. So it was said: "Continue upon it and hold fast to it, that you may be envied on a day when nothing benefits except the one who continued upon it." If it were said: "Continue upon it before you miss it and do not attain it," it would not have that same emphasis, because the first is more like an incitement to seek the action itself, and the second is a request for continuity. So perceive that.

Abu Amr, Ibn Kathir, and Ya'qub read: "in which there is no trading nor friendship" (lā bay'un fīhā wa-lā khilālun) with the nominative case for both nouns, to specify the totality of the negation, and the indication of the nominative for that is—according to what is said—its occurrence as a response to "Is there trading or friendship in it?"