4. And those who are for Zakat, doers [of it].

It is apparent that what is intended by Zakat is the infinitive meaning, namely, purification (tazkiyah), as it is that which their action relates to. As for the second meaning—the specific amount that the one paying Zakat gives out—it is not itself an object of their action. Therefore, if that meaning is intended, it is necessary to assume an omitted word; i.e., "they are doers of the performance of Zakat," or to incorporate into "doers" the meaning of "performers." Al-Tabrizi interpreted it this way, though he was criticized on the grounds that one does not say, "I did the Zakat," meaning "I performed it." If the first meaning is intended, describing them as "doers of purification" leads to the performance of the [giving of the] actual asset by way of metonymy, which is more eloquent. This is one of the reasons for departing from the phrasing "and those who purify" to the phrasing found in the noble text.

All that was mentioned previously regarding the superiority in eloquence of "And those who are, from vain talk, turning away" over "those who do not engage in idle play" applies here as well, except for the fifth point—and the fourth according to some—because the prepositional phrase is connected to what follows it. Furthermore, the lam (in lil-zakah) is added to strengthen the action in two ways: by fronting the object and by the fact that the agent is a noun. Others have said: It is possible for a similar argument to apply where the object is fronted, even with the weakness of its agent, not for the sake of exclusivity, but because it is the focal point of the benefit. It is also permissible to consider the contextual exclusivity regarding spending on what is not appropriate. Describing them with this after describing them with humility in prayer is to indicate that they have spared no effort in worship, both physical and financial. The interjection of the mention of turning away [from vain talk] between them is due to its complete compatibility with humility in prayer; otherwise, these two forms of worship are usually mentioned together in the Qur’an without separation.

Abu Muslim stated that Zakat here refers to righteous deeds, as in the Almighty’s saying: "better than it in Zakat (purification/goodness)." Al-Raghib opted for the view that Zakat means purity (taharah) and that the lam is for the cause; the meaning being: "those who perform acts of worship so that Allah may purify them, or so that they may purify their souls." Al-Tayyibi transmitted something similar from the author of al-Kashshaf, who said: "The meaning of the verse is: those who work righteousness for the sake of purity and the purification of the soul." The Almighty’s saying, "He has certainly succeeded who purifies himself and remembers the name of his Lord and prays," and "He has certainly succeeded who purifies it," points to this; for the Qur’an interprets itself, and one should not depart from interpreting one part by another when possible. Some prominent scholars said: The collocation of this with prayer proclaims that what is intended is the description of them as paying Zakat, which is a financial act of worship. The analogy of our current context with those two verses is remote, as they are not of this category at all. It may be said that the separation between them suggests what Al-Raghib and those who followed him chose. Furthermore, the fact that the Surah is Meccan and Zakat was made obligatory in Medina supports this, so as not to necessitate the interpretation mentioned previously—so reflect on this.

In any case, the verse is in the highest ranks of eloquence and rhetoric. The statement of some non-Arab heretics who were deprived of the taste of the Arabic language—"Why was 'performers' (mu'addun) not used instead of 'doers' (fa'ilun)?"—is pure ignorance and foolishness, for which there is no cure. Even if we were to assume—and God forbid—that the Qur’an were the speech of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he is the one to whom eloquence was distilled to its essence and to whom rhetoric surrendered its reins. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was among masters of criticism who spared no effort in seeking a fault to relieve themselves from the sting of the spears [of his eloquence]. Something similar to this appeared in the speech of Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt, who said: "Those who provide food in the year of famine, and are the doers of Zakat (alms/purifications)." No master of Arabic eloquence retorted against him or found fault with it.

Al-Zamakhshari chose to interpret Zakat here as the physical asset and assumed an omitted noun, contrary to the verse. He justified this by its pluralization, [arguing] that this only happens to the noun, not the infinitive. He was countered by the fact that many infinitives have been used in the plural, such as zunūn (suspicions), ʿulūm (knowledges), ḥulūl (settlements), and ashghāl (occupations), and others. When they differ, the majority hold the view that they may be pluralized. They differ here according to their objects, for the extraction of currency is different from the extraction of livestock, and the extraction of livestock is different from the extraction of crops—so keep this in mind.