Tafsir of An-Nur 24:61

It is narrated in the book of al-Zahrawi on the authority of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that these groups of people used to feel constrained about eating with those who were healthy, fearing that the healthy would find them repulsive or that they would be disturbed by their manners and conditions, so this verse was revealed.

It is also said that they would enter a man's house in search of food; if he did not have anything to feed them, he would take them to the houses of their fathers, mothers, or some of those whom Allah the Exalted named in the noble verse. They used to feel constrained by this, saying: "He took us to someone else's house, and perhaps the occupants are displeased by that." Likewise, they felt constrained about eating from the wealth of those who, when departing for battle, would leave these weak individuals in their homes, handing them the keys and giving them permission to eat from what was inside, for fear that their permission might not have been given with a full heart.

Others also felt constrained about eating in the houses of others. On the authority of Ikrimah, the Ansar were by nature refined; they would not eat from the houses that Allah the Exalted mentioned. Al-Suddi said: "A man would enter his father's, brother's, or sister's house, and the woman would offer him something to eat, but he would feel constrained because the head of the household was not present."

Al-Haraj (blame/constraint) in the language, as al-Zajjal stated, means "tightness." It is derived from al-harajah, which refers to trees growing so densely that paths become narrow. Al-Raghib said: "Originally, it signifies a gathering of things, then it was applied to tightness, and then to sin." The meaning, according to the first narration, is: "There is no blame upon these [people] for eating with the healthy." For the other narrations, one may estimate what is appropriate, which is self-evident. The particle 'ala (upon) retains its meaning in all these cases.

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that when [the verse] "Do not consume one another's wealth unjustly" was revealed, the Muslims felt constrained about eating with the blind man—because he cannot see the good portions of food—the lame man—because he cannot compete for food—and the sick man—because he cannot consume the food fully; so Allah the Exalted revealed this verse.

It is said that the Arabs and those in Medina before the Prophetic mission used to avoid eating with these people due to the wandering of the blind man’s hand, the awkward posture of the lame man, and the sick man’s lack of freedom from an offensive odor, a draining wound, or a dripping nose—so this was revealed. Those who adopt this view interpret 'ala (upon) as meaning fi (in), i.e., "There is no constraint in eating with the blind man," and so on. Otherwise, the correct structure would have been, "It is not for you to eat with the blind man—there is no constraint," and the same is said for what follows. This contains an obvious remoteness.

It is also said there is no need to estimate a deletion after His saying (the Exalted), "blame," as previously indicated, because the meaning is: "There is no blame upon the listed groups, nor upon yourselves, that you eat—you and they with you—from your houses," etc. Maulana Shaykh al-Islam held this meaning, then added: "Generalizing the address to include the aforementioned groups is rejected by what precedes and follows it, for the address in both is certainly to others." Perhaps the former [interpretation] is better, and as for generalizing the address, I do not say so at all.

It is narrated from Ibn Zayd, al-Hasan, and al-Jubba'i that the obvious view is that the haraj (blame) negated from those with excuses is the blame for refraining from Jihad and other things for which they were granted concessions, and the haraj negated from those after them is the blame for eating from the mentioned houses. The author of al-Kashshaf said: "The speech regarding this is correct because the two groups converge in that blame is negated from both." Its example is a traveler asking about breaking the fast in Ramadan, and a pilgrim performing Hajj al-Mufrad about performing the shaving of the head before the sacrifice; you say: "There is no blame on the traveler to break the fast, and there is no blame on you, O pilgrim, to perform the shaving before the sacrifice." This is a verification of the nature of the conjunction. Since it seemed strange due to the remoteness of the common factor at first glance, he cleared it by explaining that the purpose was to clarify the ruling according to the incidents; and although the two incidents are entirely different, when they occur together and the need for clarification arises, the common factor between them draws near. This is not the case when the speech is not in the context of providing a legal opinion and clarification.

Thus, the answer becomes clear to the objection raised against this narration—that the speech does not align with what precedes or follows it—for its suitability to what follows is known, and as for its suitability to what precedes, it is not necessary since it is not conjoined to it. Perhaps one might say regarding the mention of negating blame from those with excuses for abandoning Jihad and similar acts—which they were permitted to skip—amidst the explanation of seeking permission and the like: "Negating blame from them for that entails that there is no obligation to seek permission from the Prophet (peace be upon him) for abandoning such things. Therefore, they may refrain from Jihad and the like without seeking permission or having authorization, just as slaves and children may enter houses—other than during the three periods of privacy—without permission or authorization from the household." Such [an explanation] is sufficient as a reason for inserting a sentence amidst others that are visibly connected.

As for why haraj (blame) was not mentioned in His saying (the Exalted), "nor upon yourselves"—by saying, "nor upon yourselves is there blame"—it is because its mention earlier is sufficient, and the latter places are positions of ellipsis. It was not sufficient to mention haraj once—by saying, "There is no blame upon the blind, the lame, the sick, and yourselves that you eat"—in order to avoid an understanding contrary to what is intended. It is said that haraj was omitted at the end to indicate that it is different from the aforementioned, and this does not invalidate its indication of it, especially if we say that the indicator is not limited to it; this is as you see.

The meaning of "upon yourselves," as in al-Kashshaf, is: "Upon you and upon those in a similar condition among the believers." In al-Kashf, it is mentioned that there is an indication of the benefit of inserting the word "yourselves" (anfusikum), which is that the result is: "There is no blame upon the weak who are fed, nor upon those going to the houses of relatives and those in a similar condition—who are the friends." It is said that the benefit of inserting it is to indicate that the aforementioned eating, even though there is no blame in it, does not diminish the stature of the one who is of significance. This is a subtle and fine point that does not require the word to be used in its literal or metaphorical sense explicitly. Its origin lies in the frequent insertion of "self" (nafs) in relation to those of status, such as His saying (the Exalted): "Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy," and He did not say (Exalted is He): "Your Lord has prescribed mercy upon Him," and His saying (Almighty and Majestic is He) in the Hadith Qudsi: "O My servants, I have forbidden injustice upon Myself," instead of saying: "I have forbidden injustice upon Me," and other instances known to the fair and diligent seeker.

[Regarding the list of houses]: "Or your fathers' houses, or your mothers' houses, or your brothers' houses, or your sisters' houses, or your uncles' houses, or your aunts' houses, or your maternal uncles' houses, or your maternal aunts' houses, or [the houses] whose keys you possess" (i.e., that which is under your hands and management, whether orchard or livestock, by agency or guardianship). This is what the statement of Ibn Abbas requires, for it is narrated from him by more than one that he said: "That is the man's agent or steward over his estate and livestock; so there is no harm for him to eat from the fruit of his orchard or drink from the milk of his livestock, provided he does not carry it away or store it." Al-Suddi said: "It is the man who manages another's food and looks after it, so there is no harm in him eating from it."

Ibn Jarir said: "It is the trusted one to whom the house key is handed over and who is given permission to manage it." It is also said: "It is the guardian of the orphan who has the right to manage his wealth, for he is permitted to eat from it in a manner that is fair." Possessing the key in all these cases is a metonymy for something being under a person's hand and management. The conjunction is based on what we indicated, after "from." It is narrated from Qatadah that what is meant by "those whose keys you possess" are the slaves; thus, the conjunction is after "houses," and the estimate is "or the houses of those whose keys you possess." Because the possession of the key was a common metonymy, one does not look at whether the manager is reached via the key or otherwise. This is a common occurrence. Or, it is an interpretation supporting the treatment of slaves as equivalent to inanimate wealth, as implied by the use of "what" (ma). You see the remoteness of this statement, and [also that] the houses of slaves are included in His saying (the Exalted), "your houses," because a slave has no ownership. The intention of referring to the manumitted among them by the phrase "possession" in the past tense is something that should not be heeded.

"Or your friend" (i.e., or the houses of your friend). The friend is one who is sincere in your affection and you are sincere in his. It applies to both the singular and the plural, but here it is meant in the plural. Some say it is singular, and the secret of using it instead of "your friends" is to indicate the scarcity of friends, until it was said: "The 'Sād' of Sadiq (friend) and the 'Kāf' of Kimiya (alchemy) are both non-existent, so dismiss greed from yourself." It is narrated from Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik that he said: "I attained what I attained, even the Caliphate, yet I lacked a friend before whom I do not feel bashful." It is said it signifies that the nature of friendship is to raise the sense of duality and remove blame in eating from a friend's house, because he is more pleased with the familiarity and happier with it than many of those who are relatives. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them): "The friend is greater than parents, for when the people of Hell cry for help, they do not cry for fathers or mothers; they say: 'So we have no intercessors, nor any affectionate friend'." From Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him): "From the greatness of the sanctity of the friend is that Allah (the Exalted) made him, in terms of intimacy, trust, familiarity, and the removal of reserve, equal to the self, father, and brother." Plato was asked: "Who is more beloved to you, your brother or your friend?" He replied: "I do not love my brother unless he is my friend."

The predecessors used to be comfortable with their friends eating from their houses even if they were absent. It is narrated about al-Hasan that he entered his house to find a circle of his friends; they had taken baskets from under his bed containing khabis (a sweet dish) and the finest foods, and they were leaning over them eating. His face shone with joy and laughter, and he said: "We found them like this, we found them like this," meaning the leaders of the Companions and those he met among the veterans of Badr. A man among them would enter his friend’s house while he was away, ask his maid for his bag, and take what he wished. When the owner returned and she informed him, he would manumit her out of joy for that. This is something that used to be—if people were [true] people and the time was [true] time. But as for today, its carpet has been folded—as far as I know—its pavilion has collapsed, its traces have been effaced, and its moons have set. The "friend" has become a name for an enemy who conceals his enmity and waits for the battles and raids of time against you. Alas, and alas again! There is no power and no strength except by Allah. Among the miseries of the world for a free man is seeing an enemy for whom there is no alternative to friendship.

Furthermore, the negation of blame in the aforementioned eating is conditional upon the eater knowing the owner’s consent, either through explicit permission or a sign. It is not a valid objection that if consent is found, it is permissible to eat from the wealth of a stranger or even an enemy, as there would be no point in this specification; because the specification of these individuals is due to the custom of familiarity between them, which carries no legal restriction (mafhum). Abu Muslim said: "This refers to infidel relatives; Allah (the Exalted) permitted in this verse what He forbade in His saying (the Exalted): 'You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger'." This is not substantial. It is said that this was in the early days of Islam and then abrogated by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The wealth of a Muslim is not lawful except by his own full consent," and his (peace be upon him) saying from the Hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them): "None shall milk another’s livestock except with his permission," and His saying (the Exalted): "Do not enter houses other than your own until you have sought intimacy," and His saying (the Exalted): "Do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without waiting for its preparation"—for they were forbidden from his house except with the mentioned condition, and he (peace be upon him) was the most generous of people and the least reclusive. Therefore, others [are prohibited] by priority. You know that there is no need to claim abrogation based on what we said first.

Some Imams of the Hanafis argued from this verse that there is no hand-cutting for the theft of relatives' wealth absolutely, making no distinction between parents, children, and others, because it indicates the permissibility of entering their houses without permission, so their wealth is not "guarded" (muhraz). The mere probability of the literal meaning being intended—and the absence of abrogation—is sufficient as a doubt to prevent the prescribed punishment (hadd). This was challenged by stating that the prevention of hudud by doubts is not absolute according to them, as is known from their principles. It was also objected that it entails that the hand of one who steals from a friend should not be cut. The response to this is that a friend, once he intends to steal his friend's wealth, becomes an enemy. This was countered by saying that the Law looks to the outward appearance, not the inner secrets.

"There is no blame upon you that you eat together or separately." "Together" is an accusative of state from the subject of "eat." Originally, it means kull (all), and it does not imply gathering, contrary to al-Farra'. Its usage here is indicated by its opposition to His saying (the Exalted): "or separately" (ashtatan). It is conjoined to it and included in its ruling. It is the plural of shatt, serving as an adjective like haqq; it is said: amrun shatt (a divided matter), meaning separated. Or, it is originally a verbal noun used as an adjective for emphasis.

The verse, according to the majority of exegetes, is a new sentence intended to explain another ruling of the same type as what preceded. It was revealed—according to what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Dahhak, and Qatadah—regarding the Banu Layth ibn Amr ibn Kinanah, who felt constrained to eat their food alone. A man among them would not eat and would wait his whole day until he found a guest to eat with him; if he did not find someone to eat with, he would not eat anything. Sometimes a man would sit with food before him and not touch it from morning until evening. Sometimes he would have plenty of camels but would not drink from their milk until he found someone to drink with him. If evening came and he found no one, he would eat. It is said this constraint was a tradition inherited from the Friend of Allah (Ibrahim, peace be upon him). Hatim said: "When you prepare food, seek an eater for it, for I will not eat it alone." In the Hadith: "The worst of people is he who eats alone, beats his slave, and denies his aid." This dispraise is for making it a habit out of stinginess toward hospitality. The negation of "blame" for it occurring occasionally is a clarification that there is no sin in it and it is not dispraised in the Law, as it was in the Age of Ignorance. Thus, there is no need to say that the threat in the Hadith applies only to one in whom all three traits gather, not just eating alone, for that would imply each is not forbidden individually, which is not so. The saying that they were people of [eloquent] tongue and such was not hidden from them, but because the conjunction wa (and) can come in the sense of aw (or), they avoided each one out of precaution, has no basis, because these people who felt constrained did not hold to the Hadith, and the idea that wa is in the sense of aw is of no significance. Undoubtedly, the gathering of hands upon food is a sunnah, and abandoning it is a cause for dispraise.

It is narrated from Ikrimah Abu Salih that it was revealed about a group of the Ansar who, when a guest descended upon them, would not eat unless they ate with him, so they were permitted to eat however they wished. It is said [the meaning is]: A wealthy person enters the house of a poor relative or friend, and the host invites him to his food, but he says, "I feel constrained to eat with you while I am wealthy and you are poor." This is narrated from Ibn Abbas. Al-Kalbi said: "When they gathered to eat food, they would set aside food separately for the blind man and his like, so Allah the Exalted clarified that this is not mandatory." It is also said: They used to eat alone for fear that one might eat more than another, or that something might happen during the gathering that would be offensive or hurtful, so it was revealed to negate the obligation of such [avoidance]. Regardless, the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. It is said that the verse is a continuation of what preceded, in the sense that it occurred as an answer to a question arising from it, as if an inquirer said: "Is the negation of blame in eating from the houses of those mentioned restricted to when eating with the people of those houses or not?" So He answered: "There is no blame upon you that you eat together—meaning gathered with the people of those houses—or separately—meaning separated, where each of you eats alone without the host present." How subtle is the negation of haraj (blame) where its circle is wide, and the negation of janah (blame) in what was mentioned between two matters! Points of subtlety do not have to be uniform; thus it is said, so reflect.

"So when you enter houses"—a commencement of explaining the etiquette that should be observed when carrying out what was permitted, after the permission itself was stated—"give salutations to yourselves" (i.e., to their inhabitants, as Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al-Iman narrated from Ibn Abbas). Similar to this is what Abd al-Razzaq and others narrated from al-Hasan, that the meaning is "let some of you salute others," similar to His saying (the Exalted): "and slay yourselves." Expressing the inhabitants of those houses as "yourselves" is to treat them as such due to the intensity of the connection. In al-Insaf, it is mentioned that expressing them in this way is an alert to the secret that necessitated the permissibility of eating from these listed houses, and that it was because they are, for the one entering, like his own house due to kinship and the like. It is also said that the meaning is to salute the inhabitants in the most complete way, for if the one who is saluted returns the greeting, it is as if he saluted himself, just as the killer, for deserving death by his action, is as if he were killing himself. Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Jarir, al-Hakim—who authenticated it—and others narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said about this verse: "It is the mosque; if you enter it, say: 'Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah the Exalted'." Thus, he applied "houses" in it to mosques and "salutations to yourselves" to its literal meaning.

It is also said that the intention is the houses of the addressers and their families, and it is mentioned that if a man enters upon his family, it is Sunnah for him to say: "Peace be upon you, a greeting from Allah, blessed and good." If he finds no one, he should say: "Peace be upon us from our Lord." This is narrated from Ata'. It is said that "saluting yourselves" is in its literal meaning, and the intention is the houses of disbelievers, and it is mentioned that one entering them—as well as entering empty houses—should say what I heard just now from Ibn Abbas. It is said that for disbelievers, one should say: "Peace be upon whoever follows the guidance." It is not hidden that what is appropriate for the context is salutation, meaning safety from calamities. It is also a name of His (Almighty and Majestic is He), and the discussion on that has passed in the most perfect way, so remember.

"A greeting from Allah" (i.e., established by His command, legislated from His presence, the Exalted). The prepositional phrase relates to an elided word that is an adjective for "greeting." It is also permissible to relate it to "greeting" (tahiyyah), for it is a request for life, and it is from Him (the Exalted). The origin of its meaning is to say, "May Allah grant you life," then it was generalized for every supplication. Its accusative case is as a verbal noun for "salute," like qa'adtu julusan (I sat a sitting); it is as if it was said, "salute a salutation," or "greet a greeting." "Blessed" (blessed with reward, as narrated from Muqatil). Al-Dahhak said: "In the peace there are ten good deeds, and with 'and mercy' there are twenty, and with 'and blessings' there are thirty." "Good" (tayyibah)—with which the soul of the listener feels good. The apparent meaning is that the one greeting adds what was mentioned to his greeting. Some of the predecessors have additions to it, as previously mentioned. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) that he said: "I did not take the Tashahhud (testimony in prayer) except from the Book of Allah; I heard Allah the Exalted saying: 'So when you enter houses, give salutations to yourselves—a greeting from Allah, blessed and good.' Thus, the Tashahhud in prayer is: 'The salutations, the blessed, the good, are for Allah'."

"Thus Allah explains to you the verses" (a repetition for added emphasis, and therein is grandeur; He dignified the rulings that conclude with it). "That you may understand" what is contained within them of laws and rulings, and you may act according to their requirements, and thereby attain the happiness of the two abodes. The reasoning for this explanation with this ultimate goal—after reinforcing the previous ones with the eloquence that necessitates them—is something not hidden. Some of the eminent scholars mentioned that He (the Exalted) began the Sura with His saying (the Exalted): "And We have sent down in it verses that are clear," and He concluded it with His saying (Almighty and Majestic is He): "Thus Allah explains to you the verses," that you may understand.