Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:34

"And do not approach the wealth of the orphan..."

The prohibition against approaching it is stated as a form of hyperbole, as previously mentioned, to emphasize the warning against interfering with it. It also serves as a gateway to the exception in His saying: "except in the way that is best," meaning: through the trait and method that is the best of all traits and methods, which is by preserving and investing it.

"...until he reaches his maturity."

This is the limit for the permissibility of disposal [of the wealth] in the "best way" which was implied by the exception, not just for the aforementioned way [of preservation] alone. Regarding al-ashudd (maturity/strength): it is said to be the plural of shadd, like adhr is the plural of dhir; and shadd means strength, specifically the consolidation of the strength of youth and age, just as the shadd of the day is its height/peak. Antara said: "I recall him when the day was at its peak, as if his fingertips and head had been dyed with ‘idhm (a black dye)." Others said it is the plural of shiddah (intensity), like ni‘mah and an‘um. Some Basran scholars said it is a singular noun, like anak (lead). The intended meaning of reaching al-ashudd is reaching a point where, due to his intellect and maturity, he is able to manage the interests of his wealth.

Then, disposing of the orphan’s wealth by, for example, consuming it in a manner not permitted is a major sin. Ibn Abd al-Salam hesitated regarding whether to restrict this to the nisab (minimum threshold) of theft. He stated in al-Qawa’id: "The Sacred Law has established that giving false testimony and consuming the wealth of an orphan are major sins. If these occur regarding significant wealth, the matter is clear. But if they occur regarding trivial wealth—like a raisin or a date—it is possible to consider them major sins because the genus of this corruption is significant, like a drop of wine, even if the actual corruption is not realized. It is also possible to restrict this to the nisab of theft."

A distinction may be drawn between the two cases: in false testimony, there is, alongside the audacity to violate the sanctity of protected wealth, the audacity to lie in testimony—unlike a small amount of an orphan's wealth—so restricting it to the nisab is not far-fetched. This is what has been said.

The truth is that the verses and reports (hadiths) that have come regarding the warning against consuming the wealth of the orphan are absolute; they encompass both small and large amounts. Therefore, it is not permissible to restrict them without textual evidence, and since there is no such evidence, the restriction is not accepted. Thus, the view is that there is no difference between consuming a little or consuming a lot in it being a major sin for which the perpetrator deserves a severe warning. Yes, for a trivial thing that custom deems permissible to overlook, it is not unlikely that consuming it is not among the major sins. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best. Nowadays, judges have managed to consume the wealth of the orphan under the guise of "preserving" it. May Allah, the Exalted, deal with them according to His justice and cause those among them who are treacherous to taste the recompense of their actions in both abodes.

"And fulfill the covenant..."

...that which you have covenanted with Allah, the Exalted, regarding adherence to His obligations, and that which you have covenanted with others among the servants. This includes contracts. It is also permissible that the meaning is what Allah, the Exalted, has covenanted with you and charged you with.

"Fulfilling the covenant" (al-iifa’ bi-al-‘ahd) and "keeping it" (al-wafa’ bihi) is to perform according to its requirements, to maintain it, and not to break it. The derivation of its opposite, al-ghadr (treachery), points to this, as it means abandonment. It is rarely used without the particle ba’ (bi-) to distinguish it from sensory fulfillment, like fulfilling a measure or a weight.

"...indeed, the covenant..."

The noun is made explicit here in place of a pronoun to show complete concern for its status. It is also said it was to prevent the misconception that the pronoun would refer back to "fulfillment" (al-iifa’) implied by "fulfill" (awfu).

"...will be questioned."

Meaning: questioned about it, with the preposition omitted. The pronoun, after the omission, is rendered as an implicit subject within the passive participle. This is called "omission and attachment" (al-hadhf wa al-is’al), and it is common. It is also permissible to interpret the speech as having an omitted genitive noun (mudaf), meaning: "Indeed, the possessor of the covenant will be questioned." It is also said that there is no omission at all and the speech is a form of representation (takhyeel); it is as if the covenant is being asked, "Why were you broken? Why was fulfillment not accorded to you?" as a rebuke to the breaker, just as it is said to the buried infant girl: "For what sin was she killed?" An implied metaphor (isti’arah makniyyah) and representation may be considered here. Some have suggested that it is permissible to imagine the covenant manifested in the form of one who is addressed with a question, just as good and evil deeds are embodied to be weighed.

It is also permissible that "questioned" (mas’ulan) means "sought after," from the phrase "I asked for such-and-such" (sa’altu kadha) when you seek it. Attributing the quality of being "sought" to it is metaphorical, and the meaning is that the non-loss of the covenant is what is sought.

It is also possible that there is an omitted mudaf in the speech... and you have just heard that such things are common. There is no circular reasoning (ta’lil) here, as the final point is to say: "Fulfill the covenant, for the requirement that it not be wasted remains sought from everyone, so it is sought from you as well."

Furthermore, breaking a covenant—according to what authentic hadiths dictate—is considered a major sin. It has been narrated from Ali (may Allah honor his face) that he counted the "breaking of the contract"—i.e., treachery against those with whom a covenant is held—as a major sin. Shaykh al-Islam al-Ala'i explicitly stated that a hadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him) exists where he labeled it a major sin. Some researchers, however, argue that the absolute labeling of such a breach as a "major sin" requires scrutiny, based on the fact that "covenant" refers to religious obligations; among such breaches, some are major sins and some are minor, depending on the status of what was covenanted. Perhaps those who said that breaking the covenant is a major sin intended the "covenant" to be the allegiance to the Imam, and breaking it to be the violation of that pledge and rebelling against him without cause, interpretation, or doubt—there is no doubt that this is a major sin. So, contemplate this.