Ar-Rum: (38) So give the relative...

"So give the relative his right" — consisting of maintaining family ties, charity, and all other acts of benevolence — "and the needy and the wayfarer; that is best for those who desire the countenance of Allah."

The address is directed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), on the premise that he, upon him be prayer and peace, is the primary addressee, while other believers are addressed subordinately. Al-Hasan said: It is an address to every listener. More than one scholar suggested it might be addressed to whoever has been granted an abundance of provision.

The connection of this command to what precedes it, and its coupling with the fa (so), is explained by al-Zamakhshari thus: When Allah the Exalted mentioned that calamity befell them because of what their hands had put forth, He followed it by mentioning what must be done and what must be avoided. The essence of this, according to what is in al-Kashshaf, is that compliance with the commands of Allah the Exalted brings about His pleasure and the "good life" follows it, just as His disobedience, glorified is He, brings about His wrath, and drought and hardship are its concomitants. Therefore, when this is made clear, "So give, O Muhammad and those who follow you" — or "So give, O you who have been granted an abundance of provision" — "the relative his right," etc.

The Imam [al-Razi] mentioned another aspect based on the fact that the command is derived from the discourse on the expansion and restriction of provision. It is that when Allah, glorified and exalted is He, explained that He expands and restricts [provision], He commanded [the spending] as a sign that one should not hesitate in performing charity; for if Allah the Exalted expands provision, it does not decrease through spending, and if He restricts it, it does not increase through withholding, as it is said:

If the world is generous to you, then be generous to people with it, For it turns; neither does generosity deplete it when it approaches, Nor does stinginess preserve it when it departs.

The author of al-Kashshaf—may Allah spirit his soul—said: What al-Zamakhshari mentioned is more consistent with the organization of the majestic discourse, for the words of Allah the Exalted, "Do they not see that Allah expands the provision," are to complete the rejection of those who rejoice in the blessing to the exclusion of thanking the Bestower, and who despair when it departs from them.

The apparent meaning, according to what the Imam mentioned, is that the "right" refers to a financial right, and likewise in the case of the needy and the wayfarer. Some have interpreted this as the obligatory Zakat. This has been challenged on the grounds that the Surah is Meccan and Zakat was only ordained in Medina. Excluding this verse and claiming it is Medinan requires an authentic transmission, and for the revelation to precede the legal ruling is remote. For this reason, the remaining categories [of Zakat recipients] were not mentioned here.

It is narrated that Abu Hanifah used this verse as evidence for the obligation of financial support (nafaqah) for every prohibited-marriage relative (dhu rahim mahram), whether male or female, if they are poor or unable to earn a living. He reasoned that "give" is a command implying obligation, and the apparent meaning of "right," given the context, is that it is financial. If the intent were Zakat, the right of the relatives would not have been prioritized, as the priority usually implies a distinction. The Shafi'is rejected the obligation of financial support for the aforementioned, saying: There is no financial support due to kinship except for children and parents, as is detailed in jurisprudence. The "right" stated regarding the relative is the maintenance of kinship ties in its various forms, while the "right" considered for the needy and the wayfarer is either charity that was obligatory before the imposition of Zakat, or the obligatory Zakat itself, with the verse being Medinan or Meccan, and the revelation preceding the ruling. This was objected to on the grounds that if the right of the latter two is interpreted as Zakat, the first must be interpreted as obligatory support so that the command does not combine obligation and recommendation. This is why Abu Hanifah—may Allah have mercy on him—used the verse as evidence as stated, though there is debate regarding this.

Some prominent Shafi'is replied to this argument: How can it hold when there is a possibility that the command is for voluntary charity as well, as evidenced by what follows? Furthermore, "the relative" is ambiguous for the one using it as evidence; where does he get that it is specified as a "prohibited-marriage relative"? Likewise, the words of Allah the Exalted, "his right." He then said: The truth is that it is a command to provide his right of kinship maintenance, not specifically financial support, and the maintenance of kinship ties is among the emphasized obligations. This ended. The truth is more deserving of being followed, and the evidence of the Imam—may Allah have mercy on him—is not this alone, as is not hidden from the scholars of his school.

Some restricted the address to the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace) and said: The meaning of "relative" is the Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, whom the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace) was commanded to give their right from the spoils of war (ghanimah) and the fay. In Majma' al-Bayan by al-Tabarsi of the Shia, the meaning is: "Give, O Muhammad, to your relatives the rights that Allah the Exalted has assigned to them from the fifths (al-akhmas)." Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and others narrated that when this verse was revealed, he (upon him be prayer and peace) gave Fadak to Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) and surrendered it to her. This is also narrated by Abu Ja'far and Abu Abdullah. This ends there.

The objection to this is that it contradicts what is famous among both sects: that she (may Allah be pleased with her) claimed Fadak by way of inheritance. Some claimed she claimed it as a gift and brought forward Ali, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them) and Umm Ayman (may Allah be pleased with her) as witnesses, but it was not accepted from her due to the relationship of marriage and sonship, and because one woman's testimony is insufficient in this matter. So she claimed inheritance, and what happened, happened. This discussion is mentioned in the most complete manner in al-Tuhfah; if you desire it, refer to it.

Some restricted "the wayfarer" to the guest, and his right to benevolence until he departs. The famous view is that he is the one cut off from his wealth. Both meanings are inclusive in one respect. The relative was placed first out of concern for his status, which is the secret behind placing the second object before the conjunction and shifting away from saying, "And give the relative, the needy, and the wayfarer their right." He expressed the relative as "the possessor of kinship" (dhu al-qurba) in all places, but did not express the needy as "the possessor of poverty" (dhu al-maskanah), because kinship is fixed and does not renew, and "possessor of..." (dhu...) is usually not said except for something fixed. Do you not see that they say of one whose correct judgment is repeated, "So-and-so is a possessor of judgment," and you hardly hear them say that of one who has been correct in his judgment only once? Likewise are the parallels to that, such as their saying: "So-and-so is a possessor of status," and "So-and-so is a possessor of initiative." Because poverty is something that occurs and passes, he did not say "possessor of poverty" regarding the needy.

Thus said the Imam: "That" — meaning the giving understood from the command — "is best for those who desire the countenance of Allah" — meaning His own Essence, glorified be He; i.e., they intend Him, the Almighty, through their kindness purely, or "the direction of Allah," meaning they intend the direction of drawing near to Him, glorified be He, not another direction. Both meanings, as in al-Kashshaf, are close, but the method is different.

"And those" — who are characterized by giving — "are the successful ones," in that they obtained, by agreement, that which results in everlasting bliss. The restriction is relative, as it is said: i.e., those are the successful ones, not those who were stingy with their wealth and did not spend anything from it.

It is also said: It is absolute, on the basis that those characterized by the aforementioned giving are those who believed, established prayer, turned to Him, the Exalted, and feared Him, the Almighty. Thus, there is no contradiction between this restriction and the restriction mentioned at the beginning of Surah al-Baqarah. Reflect on this.