Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:112

(And whoever earns a sin) meaning a minor sin, or a transgression from among the sins in which there is no deliberation. Mu’adh ibn Jabal recited it as yaktasibu (to acquire), the root of which is yaktasib.

(Or a crime) meaning a major sin, or that which was done with intent. It is said: "sin" refers to polytheism, and "crime" refers to what is beneath it. In Al-Kashshaf, it states: "A crime (ithm) is a sin for which its perpetrator deserves punishment." The hamzah in it replaces the waw, as if it "breaks" (yathumu) deeds, meaning it shatters them by nullifying them. In Al-Kashf, it suggests that this is its original root, and then it was used for sin in a general sense, as in His saying, "the major crimes (kaba’ir al-ithm)." From this, the weakness of what the one who suggested otherwise mentioned is known.

(Then accuses with it) meaning throws and attributes it. The pronoun is singular because it returns to one of the two matters—without specification—as if it were said: "Then he accuses with one of the two matters." It is also said that it returns to "crime" (ithman), for regarding nouns conjoined by "or," it is permissible for a subsequent pronoun to refer to the conjoined noun; such is the case in the example, "But when they saw a transaction or an amusement, they broke away to it," and also to the first noun (the antecedent), as in: "And those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them." It is also said that it returns to "earning" (al-kasb), along the lines of "Be just; that is nearer to righteousness." Another view is that there is an elision in the speech, meaning: "Then he accuses with it [the sin] and with it [the crime]." "Then" (thumma) here denotes a delay in rank. It has been recited in the dual form (yarmiya bihima).

(An innocent person) [i.e., innocent] of what he accused him with, in order to load upon him the punishment of the worldly life—just as he who possessed the shield did to Labid ibn Sahl, or as was done to Abu Mulayk.

(He has indeed borne) [i.e., he has carried] by what he did of accusing the innocent and intending to load his own guilt upon him. This is more emphatic than "carrying" (haml). It is said that the form ifta’ala carries the meaning of fa’ala (to act), such as iqtadara and qadara.

(A fabrication) which is lying against another in a way that he is confounded and bewildered upon hearing it due to its enormity. It is also said: It is a lie that causes bewilderment due to its greatness. The past tense verb is bahta (like mana’a). Regarding the infinitive, it is said bahtan, bahtan, and buhtan.

(And a manifest crime) meaning clear, with no doubt or concealment in it. It is an adjective for "crime." The mention of "fabrication" (as an indefinite noun) is sufficient to indicate its magnitude through a hyperbolic function—given that describing the "crime" with what was mentioned is equivalent to describing the "fabrication" with it. For they are expressions for one and the same thing: the accusation of the innocent with one's own crime. It is expressed by both words to indicate the horror of the matter and the hideousness of the situation.

The pivot of the greatness and importance is that the thing accused is the very crime of the accuser. For if one accuses an innocent person of a crime—whether it be a "sin" or an "ithm"—it is, in itself, a "fabrication" and a "sin." As for it being a "fabrication," that is obvious. As for it being a "sin," it is because the fact that the guilt is a "sin" for the one who committed it does not necessitate that it is the same for the one who attributed it to the innocent; in fact, that is absolutely impermissible. How could it be otherwise, when it is a prohibited lie in all religions? Therefore, it is, by necessity, a fabrication and a sin.

By that crime belonging to the accuser, the act intensifies in severity and increases in ugliness. However, this is not because of the addition of his earned crime to the act of accusing the innocent—otherwise, accusing [an innocent person] of someone else's crime would be equal in magnitude. Nor is it merely because it includes clearing his own sinful self—otherwise, accusing [an innocent person] of someone else's crime while clearing his own self would be equal in magnitude. Rather, it is because it includes the intention of loading his own crime onto the innocent person and having the punishment for it carried out upon him, as is indicated by the choice of al-ihtimal (to bear a heavy burden) over al-iktisab (to earn). This is due to what it implies regarding the reversal of his appraisal, alongside the indication of the heaviness of the burden and the difficulty of the matter, as required by the literal form of ifta’ala. Yes, through the aforementioned combination of his earning the sin, clearing his own self, and accusing the innocent, the crime increases in ugliness, but that increase is a description of the whole, not just the "crime" alone. This is what the Shaykh al-Islam said, and it is not hidden that this is superior to what is understood from the literal meaning of Al-Kashshaf—that there is a disjointed summary and detail in the revelation—where it says following the words of the Almighty: "He has indeed borne...": for by earning the sin, he is a sinner, and by accusing the innocent, he is a fabricator. Thus, he combines both matters for his being free of what is binding upon him, even if an answer is provided for that. So understand.