Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:2

This marks the beginning of detailing the aspects of taqwa (piety/caution) in the most perfect manner. It starts with what concerns orphans to demonstrate the completeness of the concern for their affairs, and because of their close kinship ties. The address is directed to guardians and trustees, for guardianship is rarely delegated to a stranger.

An yatim (orphan) among humans is one whose father has died, and among all other animals, it is one who has lost its mother. Yutm (orphanhood) means singularity (being alone). Hence, it is applied to everything that has no equal, and from this is the "unique pearl" (al-durra al-yatima). It is pluralized as yatama, even though the form fa‘il is not typically pluralized as fa‘ala (it is usually fa‘ala like karim/kiram, or fu‘ala like karim/kurama, or fu‘ul like nadhir/nudhur, or fa‘la like marid/marda). This is either because it is treated as a noun—which is why it is rarely used to describe an object—so it was pluralized as yata’im (like afil/afayil), then it was inverted to become yatama with a kasra, then lightened by changing the kasra to a fatha, and finally the ya was changed into an alif. The original form appears in the poetry: "O ruins of Hasan at the al-Buraq, peace be upon the ancient stones." Or, it may be because it was first pluralized as yutama, then pluralized as yatama to append it to the category of "afflictions and pains" (afat wa awja‘), for the fa‘il in that category is pluralized as fa‘la, and fa‘la is pluralized as fa‘ali, just as asir (captive) is pluralized as asra, then as asara. The point of resemblance is the humiliation and painful brokenness contained within it. It is also said that the point of resemblance is the bad manners associated with afflictions.

Etymology dictates that it can be correctly applied to both the young and the old, but the Divine Law (al-shar‘)—as well as common usage—has specified it to the young. The hadith, "There is no orphanhood after puberty," is an instruction for the Divine Law, not a definition of the word’s literal meaning.

The intent of "giving them their properties" is to leave them intact, without interfering with them in a harmful way. This is a metaphor used for the necessary consequence of its meaning, because the property is not "given" unless it is in such a state. The point of this expression is to indicate that the purpose of refraining from interference should be the delivery of the properties to those mentioned, not merely the cessation of interference with them. Based on this, it is valid to consider "orphans" as the young, which is the immediate understanding. The command is specific to those who manage their affairs, i.e., the guardians and trustees. The inclusion of the guardians of those who were already adults at the time of the revelation is through indication (dalala), not expression (ibara). It is also valid to take the term metaphorically to mean anyone experiencing "orphanhood" in a general sense, whether they were orphans at the time of revelation or are adults, thus making the command applicable to the guardians of both groups, obligating them to refrain from encroaching upon the properties and from consuming them. As for the obligation of handing over the property to adults, that is derived from the command to do so which follows later.

It is said that the intent of "giving" is actual delivery, and "orphans" is either used in its original linguistic sense—which is a literal meaning based on the origin of the language—or it is a metaphor considering the previous state, chosen due to the proximity of the time of childhood. This serves as an indication of the obligation to hasten the delivery of their properties to them, such that the name "orphan" remains even after they have ceased to be one. In Usul (legal theory), this is called "the indication of the text" (isharat al-nass), where a statement is brought for one meaning but implies another. This is similar to al-musharafa (imminent state). Others argue it is permissible for "orphans" to mean the young without it being a metaphor, by conditioning the ruling, as if it said: "Give them their properties when they reach puberty." This was rejected in al-Talwih by stating that the intended meaning of His saying, "Give the orphans their properties," is at the time of puberty, considering their past state, for the consideration is for the state of relation, not the state of speech.

Some researchers have said: Estimating a condition does not eliminate the need for metaphor, for judging something by a descriptive trait requires it to be characterized by that trait at the time the judgment is attached. When the "giving" is attached to them, they must be orphans. Thus, interpretation is necessary as previously mentioned. It was answered that although this issue is mentioned in al-Talwih, it is not universally accepted. The Sharif (al-Jurjani) hesitated regarding it in his marginalia. The truth is that in such cases, there are two relations: a relation between the condition and the consequence (which is conditional and occurs now, not depending on their existence in reality), and a predicative relation in each of the two sides (which does not occur now, but in the future). The intent is the first one, and at the time of that relation, they were orphans in reality. Do you not see that when people say, "I pressed this must/grape juice last year," it is considered the truth, even though at the time of pressing, it was juice, not wine? Because the intent is the relation, which is secondary, between the demonstrative noun and its follower, not the actualizing relation between it and the act of pressing. This is as verified by some scholars, and an indication of this passed in the beginning of Al-Baqarah; contemplate it, for it is subtle.

It is said that the meaning of "giving" is general—covering both present and future—and that "orphans" encompasses both the young and the old by way of dominance (taghlib). The address is general to the guardians of both groups; one who has reached puberty has his guardian commanded to deliver the property to him in actuality, and one who has not yet reached puberty has his guardian commanded to deliver it to him when he reaches puberty in a state of soundness of mind. Many have favored the first view because of His saying after some verses: "And test the orphans..." This is like evidence that the first verse is an exhortation to preserve their wealth so that it may be given to them upon their puberty and maturity, and the second is an exhortation to the actual delivery upon the attainment of puberty and maturity. This is hinted at by the use of "giving" (ita') here and "delivery" (daf') there. Furthermore, following this verse with "And do not exchange the corrupt for the good, and do not consume their wealth with your wealth" reinforces this. All of this is discipline for the guardian as long as the wealth is in his hands and the orphan is under his care. According to the other views, the meaning of this verse and what follows would be identical, as both contain the command for actual delivery. Those who say this consider the first as general and the second as clarifying the conditions for giving, namely puberty and mental maturity. The final view is also rejected for containing forced interpretation. The preferred view is not invalidated by the fact that Ibn Abi Hatim recorded from Sa’id ibn Jubayr that a man from Ghatafan had a large amount of property belonging to his orphaned nephew. When the nephew reached puberty, he asked for the property, but his uncle refused. He disputed with him before the Prophet (PBUH), and "And give the orphans their properties..." was revealed. This indicates that the intent of "giving" is actual delivery, especially since al-Tha'labi and al-Wahidi narrated from Muqatil and al-Kalbi that when the uncle heard it, he said, "We have obeyed Allah and His Messenger. We seek refuge with Allah from the great sin." This is because the consideration is for the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. Perhaps the uncle did not understand the command for actual delivery by way of expression, but rather by something else, so he said what he said.

"Exchanging" (tabaddul) and "replacing" (istibdal) a thing with another always mean taking the first as a substitute for the second after it was in one's possession or about to be, by leading to the result with the things themselves, and to the thing replaced by the particle ba (as in His saying: "And whoever exchanges belief for disbelief..."). As for "changing" (tabdil), it is sometimes used similarly, as in: "And we replaced for them in exchange for their two gardens two other gardens." Other times, it is the opposite, such as: "I changed the ring for a signet ring," meaning you melted it down and made it a signet ring. Al-Damiri restricted it to the first, while al-Azhari narrated the second from Tha'lab, and the words of al-Tufayl after he became a Muslim bear witness to it: "And replaced the rise of my misfortune with my felicity."

Sometimes, it leads to its two objects by itself, as in His saying: "Those, Allah will change their bad deeds for good deeds," meaning He makes the good deeds a substitute for the bad. Sometimes, it is transitive to one object, such as "I changed the thing," meaning I altered it. And His saying: "Whoever changes it after he has heard it..." Al-Tayyibi mentioned that the meaning of tabdil is alteration, and it is general in taking one thing and giving another, or in seeking what one does not have and leaving what one has. This is the meaning of al-Jawhari’s statement: "Changing a thing is altering it, even if he does not bring a substitute." Tabaddul means istibdal, and istibdal is seeking a substitute. Thus, every tabaddul is tabdil, but not every tabdil is tabaddul. Some have distinguished between tabdil and ibdal by saying that the former is changing a thing while its essence remains, and the latter is removing a thing and placing another in its place. Scholars have spoken at length on this, and what has been mentioned is sufficient for our purpose.

"The corrupt" (al-khabith) and "the good" (al-tayyib) refer to either the unlawful and the lawful. The meaning is: Do not exchange the orphans’ wealth for your own wealth, or do not leave your lawful wealth and consume the unlawful from their wealth. Thus, what is forbidden is exchanging the orphan’s wealth for one’s own wealth absolutely, or consuming his wealth in place of one’s own, whether that is real or estimated. Al-Farra and al-Zajjaj favored the first. It is also said the meaning is: Do not exchange the corrupt—which is embezzling the orphan’s wealth—for the good, which is preserving that wealth. Whatever the case, expressing it as "corrupt" and "good" is to create aversion toward what they took and longing for what they were given. Or, it refers to the inferior and the superior, and the context of the prohibition is the practice the guardians had of taking the good from the orphan’s wealth and giving the inferior from their own. Ibn Jarir recorded from al-Saddi that he said: "One of them would take a fat sheep from the orphan’s flock and put a scrawny sheep in its place, saying, 'A sheep for a sheep.' And he would take a good dirham and put a fake one in its place, saying, 'A dirham for a dirham.'" Al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, and Ibn al-Musayyib held this view. Specifying this interaction with prohibition is because it was a custom, not to permit what is other than it; thus, there is no mafhum (implied negative) for its breaking the condition. This was objected to by saying that the appropriate term would be tabdil or exchanging the good for the corrupt, based on what the preceding speech requires.

It was answered that if a guardian gives an inferior thing and takes a good thing from the orphan’s wealth, it is true to say that he exchanged the inferior for the good for the orphan, and replaced it for himself. The apparent meaning of the verse is that the exchange for the orphan is intended, because the guardians are the ones managing the orphans' wealth, so they were forbidden from selling items from themselves or others and anything similar. It does not hurt if he also exchanged it for himself according to another consideration, because what immediately comes to mind is the prohibition of a transaction that is harmful for the orphan, whether the guardian deals with himself or someone else. Those who ignored the difference in consideration, like al-Zamakhshari, interpreted it in a way the wording does not intimate. Regardless, the meaning of the verse is the prohibition of taking the orphan's wealth in a specific way, following the implicit prohibition of taking it absolutely. The meaning of "consuming" in the final prohibition is absolute utilization and disposal. It was expressed that way because it is the most frequent state. The meaning is: Do not consume their wealth combined with your wealth, i.e., do not spend them together and do not treat them equally, for this is lawful and that is unlawful. "To" (ila) relates to an implied object that it passes through. Abu al-Baqa estimated it as a genitive construction, and it is permissible to relate it to "consuming" based on it incorporating the meaning of "adding." Some chose for it to have the meaning of "with," as in the proverb, "Adding to the flock is camels." The intent of "with" is merely treating the two properties equally in utilization, whether individually or with their wealth. It is understood from al-Kashshaf that "with" indicates the ultimate ugliness of their actions, as they consumed their properties despite having no need for them, and in that is an exposure of them for what they were doing. Thus, the one who believes in the concept of mafhum al-mukhalafa (the argument from contrary) is not obligated to allow consuming their wealth alone, and the question is averted by that.

You know that the question does not arise, so there is no need for an answer, if "exchanging the corrupt for the good" is interpreted as exchanging the orphans’ wealth for one’s own wealth and consuming it in its place. Because then, it would be a prohibition of consuming it alone, and this is about combining it, and the first is not absolute, so there is no question about what utility is in this after the absolute prohibition has arrived. In al-Kashf, if the end in "to" is taken in its original sense, on the basis that the prohibition is against consuming it while their wealth remains, because their wealth was made a limit, the exaggeration is achieved and the avoidance of the objection is realized. The appearance of this prohibition is the impermissibility of consuming anything from the orphans' wealth. That has been excepted by the amount of the "fair wage" when the guardian is poor, and that this comes from the orphan's wealth is something that is not hidden. So, the statement that there is no need for specification because what the guardians take as wages is their own, and consuming it is not consuming their wealth with their wealth, is not free from obscurity. "It"—i.e., the consuming understood from the prohibition (and it is said the pronoun refers to the exchange, and it is said to both, and it is placed in the position of a demonstrative noun in that)—"was a hubb," meaning a sin or injustice. Both are from Ibn Abbas, and they are close. Al-Tabarani recorded that Rafi' ibn al-Azraq asked him (Ibn Abbas) about al-hubb, and he said: "It is sin in the Ethiopian language." He said, "Do the Arabs know that?" He said, "Yes, have you not heard the words of al-A'sha: 'So, regarding what you have charged me with of your command, let it be known who becomes more defiant... and more sinful (ahwab).'" Some restricted it to a major sin. Al-Hasan read it as haban with a fatha on the ha, and it is a verbal noun of haba, yahubu, huban.

It is also read as haban, and it is also a verbal noun like qawl and qal. According to the famous reading, it is a noun, not a verbal noun, contrary to some. Its tanwin is for magnification, meaning a great sin. It is described by His saying "great" for the sake of exaggeration in terrifying the matter of what is prohibited, as if it were said: It is among the major, great sins, not among the minor ones.