Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:10

(Indeed, those who consume the wealth of orphans unjustly) is a resumption introduced to confirm the commands and prohibitions that were previously detailed.

(Unjustly) is either a state (hal), meaning "while they are unjust," or a cognate object (maf'ul lahu). It has also been said that it is in the accusative case as a verbal noun (masdar), meaning "a consumption of injustice," in the sense of "consuming in the manner of injustice." Another view is that it is a specifier (tamyiz).

The threat is attached to the consumption being "unjust" because one may consume the wealth of an orphan rightfully—such as for a wage, a loan, or similar—in which case it is not injustice, nor is the consumer unjust. Some say the mention of "injustice" is for emphasis and clarification, because the consumption of an orphan’s wealth cannot be anything but injustice; for if one takes the orphan’s wealth as a loan or wage, they have consumed their own wealth, not the orphan's. This, however, contains an obvious fallacy.

(They only consume into their bellies [fire]) means they are filling their bellies. This expression is common in this context, as if it were built upon the premise that the reality of "containment" (zarfiyyah) implies an encompassment such that the container does not exceed what is contained. Thus, eating "in the belly" implies filling the belly, whereas "in some of the belly" implies less—which is the intent in the saying: "Eat in [part of] your bellies to be healthy, for your time is a time of famine."

This does not contradict the statement of the scholars of legal theory (Usulis) that a vessel (zarf) governed by the particle fi (in) is not entirely occupied by the contained object, unlike when it is implied without the particle. For example, "I traveled on Thursday" implies the whole day, while "in [the] Thursday" implies only a part of it. ‘Isam al-Milla stated that the Kufans and Basrans do not differentiate between the two, as explained in grammar. Shihab al-Din said: It is apparent that what the Usulis mentioned pertains to what is correct to be governed by fi and placed in the accusative as a temporal/locative adverb. This is not the case here, because one cannot say "he ate his belly" in the sense of "in his belly." It is like saying "I put the goods in the house," which is true whether the house is full or not, though the former is the primary understanding as they stated.

It is permitted that the mention of the "bellies" is for emphasis and hyperbole, as in His saying: (They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts), yet speech can only be by the mouth; and His saying: (But blinded are the hearts which are in the breasts), yet the heart can only be in the breast; and His saying: (And there is no creature that flies on its two wings), yet a bird only flies with wings. They have said: The purpose of all this is emphasis and hyperbole.

Furthermore, the contained object here is the passive object, i.e., the "consumed thing," not the actor. The investigation of this, based on what is narrated from al-Turtushi in al-Iman, is that if a container is mentioned after a verb that has an actor and a passive object—as if you say, "If you hit Zayd in the house or in the mosque, then such-and-such"—then if both are together in it, the matter is clear. If the actor is in it but the passive object is not, or vice versa: if the verb is one whose effect is manifest on the object—like striking, killing, or wounding—then what matters is the presence of the passive object in that place. If it is a verb whose effect is not manifest, like insulting, then what matters is the presence of the actor in that place. This is why some jurists said: If one says, "If I insult him in the mosque or throw towards him," the condition for the oath to be broken is the presence of the actor there. But if he says, "If I strike him, wound him, kill him, or throw [a projectile] at him," the condition is the presence of the object there.

The reason "throwing" in the first instance is of the type that shows no effect is because it refers to letting an arrow fly from a bow by intent, which shows no effect on the target and does not depend on the description of the actor's action. In the second instance, it shows an effect because it refers to sending the arrow or the like in a way that it reaches the target, wounding or hurting it. There is no doubt that the case we are discussing is of this latter category. A completion of this discussion will follow, God willing.

The prepositional phrase (jar wa majrur) is connected to "consume," which is the apparent reading. It is said that it is a state (hal) from His saying: (Fire), meaning "what leads to it." Thus, "fire" is a metaphorical expression (majaz mursal) where the cause is mentioned to signify the effect. It is also permitted that this is a metaphor (isti'arah) comparing what is consumed of the orphans' wealth to fire because of the annihilation of what is with it. Some researchers deemed this far-fetched, while others held the opinion that it is to be taken literally. It is narrated from Ubaydullah bin Ja'far that he said: Whoever consumes the wealth of an orphan will be seized by his lips on the Day of Resurrection; his mouth will be filled with embers, and it will be said to him: "Consume what you consumed in the world," then he will enter the Great Blaze.

Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him about the Night of the Ascension, saying: "I looked and saw people with lips like the lips of camels. Those appointed were taking hold of their lips, then placing into their mouths rocks of fire, which are thrown into their interiors until they exit from their hindquarters. They have wailing and screaming." I asked, "O Gabriel, who are these?" He said, "Those who consume the wealth of orphans unjustly."

(And they will be burned in a Blaze), meaning they will enter a fire that is terrifying and whose description is profound. Ibn Amir and Abu Bakr from ‘Asim read it with the ya of the present tense (prefix) as yusalawna, while the others read it with fathah (as sasalawna). It is also recited as yussalawna with a shaddah on the lam. In al-Sihah, it is said: "I roasted (salaytu) the meat and other things," meaning I cooked it; and "I roasted a man with fire" means I caused him to enter it and be subjected to it. If you throw him into it—as if you intend burning—you say aslaytuhu (with an alif). It is also said: "He suffered (sala) the affair," if he experienced its heat and severity. The Tuhawi said: "Their bravery does not decay, even if they were roasted by war time after time."

Some researchers have said that the root of sali is to be near the fire, and it has been used here to mean "entering" metaphorically. The appearance of some scholars' speech suggests that it is transitive in itself. It is said that it is transitive by the preposition ba, as in "he was roasted by the fire." al-Raghib mentioned that it is sometimes transitive by ba and other times by itself, perhaps having two meanings, as indicated in al-Sihah.

Al-Sa'ir (the Blaze) is a fa'il form in the sense of maf'ul (passive), from "I ignited (sa'artu) the fire," if you lit it and made it flare. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Ibn Jubayr that al-Sa'ir is a valley in the heat of Hell.

The appearance of the verse is that this ruling is general for everyone who consumes the wealth of an orphan, whether he be a believer or a polytheist. Ibn Jarir narrated from Zayd bin Aslam that he said: "This verse is for the people of polytheism, when they did not grant orphans inheritance and consumed their wealth." It is not hidden that if he meant that the ruling of the verse is exclusively for the polytheists, then this is not accepted; but if he meant that it was revealed concerning them, then there is no harm in that, for the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not for the specificity of the cause.

In some reports, it is stated that when this verse was revealed, it was heavy upon the people, and they avoided mixing with orphans entirely, which made the matter difficult for the orphans. Consequently, His saying was revealed: (And if you mix with them...) [to the end of the verse].