Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:275

i.e., they take it, and this includes all forms of benefit. It is described as "eating" because that is the primary intent behind it. Al-Riba (usury/interest) originally means increase, from the saying "the thing rabā yar-bū," meaning it increased. In the Shariah, it is an expression for the surplus of wealth that has no corresponding compensation in the exchange of money for money. It is written with a waw—similar to al-ṣalāh (prayer)—to denote magnification according to the dialect of those who magnify it. The alif was added after it, in imitation of the waw of the plural (waw al-jam'), so the word came to match its meaning in that both contain an unmerited increase. The word al-riba took the additional letter—the alif—due to the word that resembles it, which is the waw of the plural (as the alif is added to it). Just as it takes the meaning of the word al-riba from its resemblance to the meaning of the word al-bay’ (sale), since both meanings encompass the exchange of money for money by mutual consent, even if one of the compensations is greater.

It is said: It is written with a waw and an alif because the word has a share of both. They were not written in al-ṣalāh and al-zakāh with them to avoid the suspicion of confusion with the plural. Al-Farra’ said: They learned calligraphy from the people of al-Hira, who were Nabataeans whose dialect was ribwā with a quiescent waw, so it was written as such. This is the school of the Basrans, while the Kufans permitted its writing—as well as its dual form—with a ya because of the kasra at its beginning. Abu al-Baqa’ said: That is incorrect in our view.

{لا يقومون} (They will not stand) i.e., on the Day of Resurrection, and it is recited as such, as mentioned in al-Durr al-Manthur.

{إلا كما يقوم الذي يتخبطه الشيطان} (Except as stands the one whom the devil strikes) i.e., except for a standing like the standing of the one struck and possessed in this world. Al-takhabbut (striking/touching) is the form tafa''ul meaning fa'ala, and it originates from successive blows in various directions. Then it was used metaphorically for every reprehensible blow. The standing of the usurer on the Day of Resurrection in such a state is something the traditions have spoken of. Al-Tabarani recorded from Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Beware of the sins that are not forgiven: the spoils of war—whoever steals something from it will bring it on the Day of Resurrection—and eating usury. Whoever eats usury will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection as a madman being struck." Then he recited the verse. This is something that neither reason refutes nor prevents. Perhaps Allah the Almighty made this a sign for him, by which he is known on the Day of the Great Gathering as a punishment for him, just as He made for some of the obedient a mark befitting them by which they are known as an honor for them. This is supported by the fact that this nation will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection with bright foreheads and limbs from the effects of wudu. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, and Qatadah held this view, and al-Zajjaj chose it. Ibn Atiyyah said: The intent is to liken the usurer in his greed and movement in his acquisition in this world to the one struck and possessed, as it is said to one who hastens with various movements: "He has gone mad." It is not hidden that this is a contradiction to what the predecessors of the nation followed, and it is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) through channels other than this one, except for the dismissal that is not considered in such contexts.

{من المس} (From the touch) i.e., madness. It is said: "A man is mass (touched/possessed), so he is mamsus (possessed)" if he goes mad. Its origin is touching with the hand, and it is named as such because the devil may touch a man when his humors are prepared for corruption, so they corrupt and madness occurs. This does not contradict what the physicians mentioned, that it is from the dominance of the black bile, for what they mentioned is a proximate cause, and what the verse indicates is a remote cause. Furthermore, it is not consistent, nor is it reversible; sometimes a touch occurs without madness occurring, such as when the temperament is strong, and sometimes madness occurs without a touch, such as when the temperament is corrupted without an external intervention. The madness resulting from the touch may occur at times, and its skilled practitioners have signs by which they know it. A putrid wind might enter some bodies in certain ways, to which a malicious spirit corresponding to it attaches itself, thus causing madness in the most complete manner. Sometimes that vapor overcomes the senses and disables them, and that malicious spirit takes control and acts, speaking, striking, and striving using the tools of that person whom it has possessed, without the person having any perception of any of that at all. This is like a seen, tangible thing, the denier of which is almost considered obstinate, denying the observable.

The Mu'tazilah and al-Qaffal from the Shafi'is said: The claim that epilepsy and madness are from the devil is false, because he does not have the power to do that, as Allah the Almighty said, relating from him: {And I had no authority over you} (up to the end of the verse). The "ma" (not) here is directed at what the Arabs claimed and believed, that the devil strikes a person so he falls into an epileptic fit, and that the jinn touches him so his mind becomes confused; there is no reality to that, and it is nothing. It is from the striking of the devil at its speaker and his rejected claims, refuted by the conclusive proofs of the Shariah. It has been reported: "There is no newborn born except that the devil touches it, so it cries out," and in some versions, "except that the devil stabs its side, from which it cries out," except for Mary and her son, because of her mother's saying: {And I seek refuge for her in You and her descendants from Satan the accursed}. And his (peace be upon him) saying: "Keep your children in at the beginning of the night, for it is the time of the spreading of the devils." It has been reported in the hadith of the missing person who was kidnapped by the devils and returned during the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) that he spoke of his situation with them, saying: "Then a bird came to me as if it were a giant ostrich, and it carried me on one of its feathers." To other such traditions. In Laqt al-Marjan fi Ahkam al-Jann, there are many of them. The belief of the predecessors and the People of the Sunnah is that what these things indicate are real, actual occurrences as the Shariah informed. Committing to interpreting all of them away necessitates a long confusion, which only the Mu'tazilah and those who followed their path lean toward. By such interpretations, they have departed from the rules of the straight Shariah. Beware of them—may Allah slay them, how they are deluded! The verse they mentioned in the context of arguing for their claim does not prove it, for the authority denied therein is only coercion and compelling one to follow him, not exposure to harm and attacking in a way that causes destruction. Whoever tracks the prophetic reports will find many of them conclusive regarding the possibility of that occurring from the devil, or rather its actual occurrence. The report of the plague being "from the stings of your enemies the jinn" is explicit in that. Some of our later scholars have interpreted it in a way similar to how we interpreted the issue of takhabbut and mass, saying: When the air is corrupted in a specific way, prepared for mixing and formation, poisonous parts are separated and segregated from it, remaining in their airy state or transformed by burning fiery parts. A malicious spirit corresponding to them in evil attaches itself to them. That is a type of jinn, for they—as is known in theology—are living bodies that are not seen, either dominated by airiness or fire, and they have types, rational and irrational, that reproduce and form. When one of them descends—by nature or will—upon a person, or penetrates their pores, or strikes and stabs them, there occurs, according to the poisonous strength in that evil and the readiness of the person to be affected by it (as is the requirement of ordinary causes in their effects), a severe, mostly fatal pain, manifesting boils and pustules, mostly due to its corruption of the prepared temperament. By this, the reconciliation between the opinions on this topic is achieved. This is a sound investigation we have not found for anyone else, just as we have not found what we have investigated regarding the matter of mass for anyone other than us, so let it be preserved.

The prepositional phrase is connected to the previous negated verb, based on the principle that what is before {illa} acts on what is after it if it is a circumstantial adverb, as in al-Durr al-Masun; i.e., they do not stand from the side of the touch that is upon them due to their eating of usury, or bayaqumun (they stand), or yatakhabbattuhu (the devil strikes him). {That} (Dhalika) is a reference to the eating or the punishment that has befallen them.

{بأنهم قالوا إنما البيع مثل الربوا} (Because they said, "Trade is but like usury") They intended to string them together because both lead to profit. Thus, where the sale of something worth one dirham for two is permissible, the sale of one dirham for two is permissible. Except that they made riba the base for permissibility and likened trade to it, seeking hyperbole, as in his saying: "And a desert whose regions are dusty / as if the color of its earth were its sky." It is also said: It is permissible for the simile not to be inverted, based on what they understood—that trade was only permitted for the sake of gain and benefit, and that is realized in riba and merely imagined in others.

{وأحل الله البيع وحرم الربوا} (But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden usury) A sentence initiated by Allah the Almighty, a rebuttal to them and a denial of their equivalence. The outcome is that what you mentioned is an analogy with a corrupt premise, because it contradicts the text; therefore, it is the work of the devil. Furthermore, there is a difference between the two categories: whoever sells a garment worth one dirham for two has made the garment a compensation for two dirhams, so there is no part of them except that it is in exchange for a part of the garment. But when he sells a dirham for two dirhams, he has taken the extra dirham without compensation, and it is impossible to make the deferment a compensation, because the deferment is not wealth such that it could be in exchange for wealth. It is said: The difference between them is that one of the two dirhams in the second case is certainly lost, while in the first, it is compensated by the necessity of the commodity or the expectation of its circulation. It is also permitted that the sentence is a continuation of the speech of the disbelievers, denying and refuting the Shariah; i.e., such a difference between equivalents does not exist with Allah the Almighty. It is then a circumstantial clause with an implied qad. It is not hidden that this is far-fetched. The apparent meaning is the generality of trade and riba in every sale and every riba, except what the evidence has specifically excluded from the prohibition of some sales and the permission of some riba. It is said: Both are ambiguous, so one should not proceed to permit a sale or prohibit riba without an explanation. This is supported by what Imam Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Jarir recorded from Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "Among the last of what was revealed was the verse of riba, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) passed away before he explained it to us, so leave riba and suspicion."

{فمن جاءه موعظة من ربه فانتهى} (So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists) i.e., whoever receives a sermon and a warning, such as the prohibition of riba and its permissibility, and {man} is conditional or a relative pronoun. {Maw'izatun} (admonition) is the subject of {ja'ahu}, and the ta is dropped because of the separation and because the femininity is metaphorical, with maw'izah having a sense of masculinity. Ubayy and al-Hasan recited ja'at-hu by adding the ta. {From his Lord} is connected to ja'ahu or to an implied element acting as an adjective for maw'izah. On both accounts, it contains magnification of its status. The mention of "Lord" is an encouragement to accept the admonition, as it contains an intimation of the reformation of His servant. {Min} is for the beginning of the reach or for partiality, with an implied possessive. {Faintaha} (he desists) is coordinated with ja'ahu, i.e., he took heed without delay and followed the prohibition.

{فله ما سلف} (Then for him is what is past) i.e., what he had taken before the prohibition is not to be reclaimed from him. This is what is narrated from al-Baqir and Sa'id bin Jubayr. It is said: The meaning is that there is no blame on him in this world or the hereafter for the riba he took before. The fa is either for the response (of the condition) or a connective in the predicate. {Ma} is in the nominative position as a predicate for the adverb if {man} is considered a relative pronoun, or as an initial if it is considered conditional—according to the opinion of those who require support and that the nominative be the name of an event; those who do not require them allow it to be the subject of the adverb. {Wa amruhu} (and his matter) i.e., the one who desists after the prohibition {ila Allah} (is with Allah). If He wills, He will protect him from riba so he does not do it, and if He wills, he does not. It is said: The meaning is that He will reward him for his desisting if it was from accepting the admonition and sincerity of intention, or He will judge his matter on the Day of Resurrection as He wills—a parenthetical statement for him.

{ومن عاد} (But whoever returns) i.e., returns to what was previously mentioned of practicing riba, believing in its permissibility, and arguing for it by analogy to trade. {Fa ula'ika} (they) is a reference to whoever returns, and the plural is used in consideration of the meaning. {Ashab al-nar} (are the companions of the Fire) i.e., its constant dwellers {hum fiha khalidun} (they will abide therein eternally).

i.e., remaining forever because of their disbelief. The sentence confirms what preceded it. Al-Zamakhshari made "returns" refer to riba, so he used the verse as evidence for the eternal damnation of the perpetrator of a major sin. According to what we mentioned—which is the transmitted interpretation—there is no room for such an inference. It was objected that if eternity were made the penalty for halal-izing it, the penalty for the perpetrator of the act without halal-izing it would not be mentioned in the speech at all, neither by expression nor intimation, even though it is the most important intended meaning. This is unlike making it the penalty for the act itself, for the intended meaning would be explicitly mentioned while also conveying the penalty for halal-izing it, as that is a matter above eternity. It was answered that what makes its permissibility equivalent to disbelief is only one of the major prohibitions, and its penalty is known; thus, there was no need to draw attention to it due to its obviousness. Some investigators said in the answer: If it is made to refer to eating, the penalty is the aforementioned standing from the graves to the gathering place, and that is sufficient as a deterrent. Then He informed that what drove them to eat was this saying, so the description first intimated that the threat is for it; then He mentioned the cause of their audacity, which indicated that it is a threat to every eater, whether what drove him to it was that saying or not.

As for His saying, Glory be to Him, {So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists} and His saying, {But whoever returns}, it is regarding the speaker who believes (in its permissibility). If it is made a reference to the aforementioned standing, the penalty is what is understood from combining the act with the saying, for if it had no input in the punishment, it would not be fitting in a context of warning. The saying that the object is riba and the verse is interpreted as an exaggeration is contrary to the apparent meaning, so reflect.