Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:31

It has also been suggested that this is a precursor to His saying, the Almighty: "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty." This has been deemed unlikely on the grounds that the apparent meaning would then be disrupted. Al-imlaq is poverty, as narrated by Ibn Abbas, who cited the poet's verse: "And I, despite poverty, O people, am noble, preparing for my guests roasted and seasoned meat." The plain meaning of the text is a prohibition against all types of killing one’s children, whether male or female, for fear of poverty and destitution. However, it is narrated that some among the people of the Age of Ignorance used to bury their daughters alive for fear of being unable to support them; thus, the verse prohibits this, and the intention behind "children" here is daughters, and behind "killing" is burial alive. Khashyah (fear/apprehension) is, in essence, a form of fear mixed with reverence. Al-Raghib stated: "This is most often based on knowledge of that which is feared."

It has been recited with a kasra on the kha (khishyah). It is apparent that this prohibition is connected to what preceded it of its kind. Al-Tabarsi suggested it might be connected to His saying, the Almighty: "Worship none but Him," in which case it is possible that the verb is in the accusative case (mansub) by an, as in the preceding verb.

"We provide for them and for you" is a guarantee of their sustenance and an explanation for the aforementioned prohibition by nullifying its cause according to their assumption. That is: We provide for them, not you, so do not fear poverty based on your belief in their inability to acquire their own sustenance. Placing the pronoun for the children before the pronoun for those addressed—the opposite of what occurred in Surah Al-An'am—is to signal their priority in the allocation of sustenance. This nuance was countered there by the preceding verses, which necessitated concern for the state of those being addressed. This is how it has been stated. The Master, Shaykh al-Islam, permitted the view that this is because the motive for killing there was present poverty (imlaq), and therefore it was said "from poverty" (min imlaq), whereas here it is expected poverty, and therefore it was said "for fear of poverty" (khashyata imlaq). It is as if it were said: We provide for them without any of your sustenance being diminished, such that you encounter what you fear, and We provide for you as well.

"Indeed, their killing is a great error" (khati'an kabira) is another explanation, clarifying that the thing prohibited is in itself a great abominable act due to it involving the cessation of procreation and the cutting off of the species. Al-khat' is synonymous with sin (ithm) in both word and meaning, and the conjugation of both is of the category of 'alima-ya'lamu. Abu Ja'far and Ibn Dhakwan narrated from 'Amir the reading khata'an with a fatha on the kha and ta without prolongation. Al-Zajjaj explained this in two ways: first, that it is a verbal noun from akhta'a-yukhti'u when one misses the mark, meaning: their killing is not based on righteousness; second, that it is a dialectal variant of al-khata' meaning sin, like mithl and mathal, or hadhar and hidhr. Whoever considers this reading problematic on the grounds that al-khata' applies only to that which is unintentional—and this is not its context—has signaled his own lack of knowledge.

Ibn Kathir recited it as khata'an with a kasra on the kha, a fatha on the ta, and prolongation. This is also explained in two ways: first, that it is a dialectal variant of al-khat' meaning sin, like dabgh and dibagh, or libs and libas; second, that it is a verbal noun of khata'a-yukhati'u, like qatala-yuqatilu-qitalan. Abu Ali al-Farisi said: "Although we did not find khata'a, we did find takhata'a as its reflexive, which points us to it." This is in the saying: "The arrows missed (takhata'at) his innards." Muhammad ibn al-Suway cited in the description of a truffle—as in Majma' al-Bayan: "A disheveled man to whom I gave the rough-skinned [truffle], over which the heavy, layered clouds had poured. The hunter missed it (takhata'ahu) until I found it, its tip resting in the swamp of water." The meaning in this case is: their killing is a transgression, not based on truth or correctness. Thus, Abu Hatim’s claim that this reading is a mistake is itself a mistake. Al-Hasan recited khata'an with a fatha on the kha and ta with prolongation, as a verbal noun of akhta'a, like 'ata' is the verbal noun of a'ta. Al-Zuhri and Abu Raja' recited khata with a kasra on the kha, a fatha on the ta, and an alif at the end replacing the hamza; this is not a shortening of a long vowel (qasr al-mamdud), as that is a necessity for which there is no cause here. In one narration from Ibn 'Amir, he recited khata like 'asa.