Tafsir of Ya seen 36:47

This means: what He, Exalted is He, has given you by way of grace and bestowal from various types of wealth. This wording is used to affirm the truth and to encourage spending, following the method of His saying, "And do good as Allah has done good to you." It also serves to draw attention to the magnitude of their crime in failing to comply with the command.

The use of min (from) for partiality, and the context of the discourse, suggests that they were censured for failing to show compassion toward the creation of Allah after having been censured for failing to exalt Him through piety. This indicates that they neglected all duties, for all obligations return to two matters: exalting Allah the Exalted and showing compassion to His creation.

It is also said that this phrasing points to their lack of concern for the advisor who guides them toward that which wards off calamity from them, similar to His saying, "And when it is said to them, 'Fear Allah,' etc." The meaning in this case is: When it is said to them, by way of advice and guidance toward that which benefits them, "Spend some of what Allah has granted you from His bounty upon the needy, for that is something which averts calamity and wards off misfortunes," the disbelievers say to those who believe, "Should we feed one whom, if Allah willed, He would have fed?"

The first interpretation is more evident. It is apparent that "those who disbelieved" are the ones to whom it was said, "Spend." The shift from their pronoun to the explicit noun (the disbelievers) is an allusion to the cause of the aforementioned statement. The fact that this was said to the believers implies that they were the ones who made the request.

It is said: When the weaker associates of the disbelievers—their relatives and dependents—embraced Islam, the disbelievers cut off the support they used to provide them. This occurred in Mecca before the revelation of the verses concerning fighting. The believers encouraged them to maintain ties with their dependents, so they said, "Should we feed..." and so on.

It is also said that when Quraish suffered a crisis, they became stingy toward the poor, both the believers and others. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, encouraged them to spend on them, and they responded with this statement.

It is also said that the poor among the believers said, "Give us from the wealth you claim belongs to Allah," so they were deprived and made this response. This has been narrated from Muqatil. Ibn Abbas said: There were atheists (zanadiqah) in Mecca who, when commanded to give charity, would say, "No, by Allah! Will Allah leave him poor while we feed him?" They used to hear the believers attributing actions to the will of Allah, saying, "If Allah had willed, He would have enriched so-and-so, and if He had willed, He would have honored him." Thus, they cast this reply as a mockery of the believers and of what they used to say.

Al-Qushayri also said: The verse was revealed regarding a group of atheists who did not believe in the Creator and denied His existence; thus, their saying "If Allah willed" was a form of mocking the Muslims. It is permissible that it was based on the beliefs of those addressed. From this, it is understood that the atheist (zindiq) is one who denies the Creator. Ibn al-Kamal has verified this matter in the most complete manner in an independent treatise, so refer to it if you desire.

From al-Hasan and Abu Khalid, it is said that the verse was revealed regarding the Jews; they were commanded to spend on the poor and said this. The apparent meaning of what preceded is that it refers to the disbelievers of Mecca who were commanded to spend from what Allah had provided them—a command general to feeding and other forms of spending. They answered by denying the "feeding" which they had always boasted of, as a way of denying other forms of spending a fortiori (by stronger reason). That is why they did not say "Shall we spend?"

It is said that this was not said because "feeding" is what was meant by "spending," or because "feeding" is synonymous with "giving," though that is not strong. "He would have fed him" is the answer to the conditional "if" (law). The occurrence of an affirmative answer to law without the lam is eloquent; among such instances is: "If We had willed, We could have struck them..." and "If We willed, We could make it debris." Yes, the most common form is with the lam.

The apparent meaning is that His saying, "You are only in clear error," is a continuation of the statement of the disbelievers to the believers. That is: "You are only in manifest error in requesting from us what contradicts the will of Allah." Verily, a vessel leaks what is inside it; their answer indicates the depth of their error and the excess of their ignorance, as they did not know that Allah feeds through causes—among them, urging the wealthy to feed the poor and granting them the success to do so. It is also permissible that it is a response from Allah, rebuking the disbelievers for their ignorance of Him, or a narration of the believers' response to them. Thus, in both views, it is an explanatory isti'naf (commencement) answering what might be said: "What did Allah say?" or "What did the believers say in their response?"