Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:26

"His right": That which is established for him. It is said: The intended meaning of "the relative" is those with whom marriage is prohibited (al-maḥārim), and their right is financial support if they are poor and unable to earn a living, as indicated by the words of the Almighty: "...and the poor and the traveler." For what is commanded regarding them is financial equality—that is, give them their right from what was obligatory in Makkah, similar to Zakat.

The same applies to the prohibition against extravagance and the prohibition against being excessive in withholding or spending; for all these are financial dealings. Some have used this verse as evidence for the obligation of supporting needy relatives, even if they are not ascendants (like parents) or descendants (like children). The discourse is a case of generalization after specification; for the term "relative" includes parents linguistically, even if it does not do so by convention. Thus, they said in the chapter on wills—which is based on custom—that if one bequeaths to his relatives, it does not include parents. In al-Miʿrāj, it is narrated from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Whoever says to his father 'you are a relative,' he has been undutiful to him." The purpose here is to include others among the relatives and to advise regarding them.

In al-Kashf, it is stated that the truth is that the "giving of the right" is general, and the context requires comprehensiveness. Thus, it includes both the financial right and other forms of kindness and good treatment. Therefore, the verse does not stand as evidence for the obligation of supporting maḥārim. This was countered by the argument that the Almighty’s saying, "his right," implies entitlement due to need; moreover, when it is general, it includes the financial and the non-financial, so how could the verse not stand as evidence? I am among those who argue for the generality and that "the relative" is not restricted to those of direct lineage. The conjunction, and similarly what follows it, does not definitively indicate specialization; so reflect on this.

It is said: The intended meaning of "the relative" is the relatives of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). This is narrated from al-Suddī. Ibn Jarīr narrated from ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with both): He said to a man from Syria, "Have you read the Qur’an?" The man replied, "Yes." He said, "Have you not read in Banī Isrāʾīl: 'And give the relative his right'?" The man asked, "Are you the relatives whom Allah the Almighty commanded to be given their right?" He replied, "Yes." The Shīʿah also narrated this from al-Ṣādiq (may Allah be pleased with him), and their right is to be honored and given the khums (one-fifth). This is weakened by the fact that there is no indication of specialization. It was answered that the address is the indication, but this is debatable. What al-Bazzār, Abū Yaʿlā, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and Ibn Mardūyah narrated from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī—that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) called Fāṭimah and gave her Fadak—does not indicate that the address was specific to him (peace be upon him). Furthermore, there is doubt regarding the authenticity of the report, based on the fact that the Surah is Meccan and this verse is not an exception. Fadak was not under the control of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) at that time; rather, she (may Allah be pleased with her) requested it as an inheritance after his passing (peace be upon him), as is well-known. This refutes the claim of authenticity, as is not hidden.

"And do not spend wastefully" (6:26): He prohibited the expenditure of wealth upon those who do not deserve it, for tabdhīr (wastefulness) is spending in an improper place. It is derived from scattering seeds and throwing them onto the land indiscriminately, without caring where they fall. Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim (who authenticated it), and al-Bayhaqī in al-Shuʿab narrated from Ibn Masʿūd that he said: "Wastefulness is spending wealth on something other than its proper right." In Mufradāt al-Rāghib and others, it is stated that its root is throwing and casting seeds, then it was metaphorically applied to wasting wealth. Some considered building a house [excessively] and the like as part of this.

Al-Māwardī distinguished between it and isrāf (extravagance), stating that isrāf is excess in quantity, which is ignorance of the rightful amounts, whereas tabdhīr is excess in the location of the right, which is ignorance of the quality and the proper places. Both are blameworthy, though the latter is more deeply blameworthy. Al-Zamakhsharī interpreted tabdhīr here as distributing wealth where it should not be and spending it in a manner of extravagance. He mentioned that this indicates tabdhīr includes isrāf in linguistic convention, and is intended as its reality, even if he distinguished between them in the way he did. In al-Kashf, after conveying this distinction and affirming that the latter is more deeply blameworthy, it is stated that this did not escape al-Zamakhsharī, for etymology guides one to it. Rather, he meant that in the verse, it also covers isrāf by way of implication, as they do not differ in rulings—especially since the Almighty followed it with an urging toward moderation, which is suitable for considering the quantity, guiding one to its intended meaning in the text. This was countered by saying: If tabdhīr is more deeply blameworthy than isrāf, how can it cover it by way of implication? And the prohibition against isrāf later [in the verse] makes its intended meaning here unlikely. So contemplate this.