Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:40

Mithqal (weight) is derived from al-thiql (weight). It is applied to the measure which remains unchanged—as it is said—both in the Jahiliyyah and in Islam. As narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim from Abu Ja’far (may Allah be pleased with him), it is twenty-four carats. It is also applied to absolute measure, which is what is intended here. For this reason, al-Saddi said: "It means the weight of a dharr (atom/speck), which is the small red ant that is barely visible."

It has been narrated from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zayd that it is the head of an ant. It is also narrated from him (Ibn Abbas) that he put his hand in the soil, then blew into it and said: "Each one of these is a dharr." Similar to this is what is said: that it is one of the particles of dust seen in a sunbeam. It is also said: it is a mustard seed. The first opinion is supported by what Ibn Abi Dawud recorded in al-Masahif through the path of ‘Ata’ from Ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he recited it as: "the weight of an ant." Allah (Glorified be He) did not mention the dharr because the ruling is restricted to it, but because it is the smallest thing that enters the human imagination, or the most frequently used term when describing something as minute. He did not express it by saying "measure" or the like, but used "weight" (mithqal) to signal what is understood from the concept of "heaviness," which is used to denote abundance and greatness—as in His saying: {As for him whose scales are heavy}. This indicates that even if it is insignificant, it is great when considered by its parts.

Its grammatical position [as an accusative] is that of an adjective for an omitted verbal noun, like the object—i.e., la yazlimu zulman qadra mithqali dharratin (He does not wrong [anyone] by the weight of a dharr). Thus, the verbal noun and its adjective were omitted, and the possessive construct was placed in their stead. Or, it is a second object of yazlimu, meaning: He does not wrong anyone, or He does not wrong them, by the weight of a dharr.

Al-Samin said: It is as if they have implied in yazlimu (to wrong) the meaning of yaghsibu (to usurp) or yanqusu (to diminish), so they made it transitive to two objects.

Al-Raghib mentioned that zulm (wronging/oppression), according to the linguists, is placing a thing in other than its proper place, either by deficiency, excess, or by deviating from its time or place. Based on this, there is an indication in the speech that the diminution of reward and the increase of punishment do not occur from Him (Exalted be He) at all. In this is an encouragement toward faith and spending, and indeed guidance that everything He commanded is what ought to be done, and everything He forbade is what ought to be avoided.

The Mu'tazilah used this verse as evidence that zulm is possible in itself, but that Allah (Exalted be He) does not perform it because it is impossible according to wisdom—not because it is impossible according to power—because He (Glorified be He) praised Himself for refraining from it. There is no praise in refraining from an ugly act unless one is capable of it; do you not see that an impotent man is not praised for refraining from adultery? This was countered by His saying: {Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him}, for He mentioned it in the context of praise, even though sleep is impossible for Him (Exalted be He). It is stated in al-Kashf: This objection is invalid, because it is praise by the negation of deficiency from His sanctified Self—it is like your saying: "The Creator (Might and Majesty be to Him) is not a body nor an accident." As for the matter at hand, it is praise for refraining from an action, and praiseworthy refraining only occurs when it is by choice. Yes, the opponent may not concede that He (Exalted be He) is praised for the refraining itself, but rather [is praised] in terms of the indication of deficiency; for the necessity of existence precludes the possibility of being characterized by zulm. The truth of this according to their doctrine is that placing a thing in other than its proper place is possible in itself, and the power of the Truth (Majestic is His state) encompasses all possibilities. However, wisdom—which is bringing about a possibility in a way of perfection and as it ought to be—is a preventative. Based on this, they said: "A wise one does not perform except the good among possibilities, unless a need compels him." And He who is sanctified from needs is transcendent above performing the ugly.

We say: He (Glorified be His Name) does not diminish the reward nor increase the punishment, based on His inevitable promise. Breaking that [promise] is impossible for Him, as it would be a deficiency contrary to His divinity and the perfection of His self-sufficiency. In this regard, it is correct to call it zulm, even though zulm is not conceivable in reality from Him, as He is the absolute Owner. Thus, increase and decrease are possible in their essence, while breaking a promise is impossible in its essence. It does not follow that because breaking a promise is impossible in its essence regarding the Necessary Existent (Exalted be He), its object must be the same. This is akin to what was established in the issue of "tasking with the impossible": the fact that Allah informs about the non-belief of the obstinate and the necessity of truthfulness incumbent upon Him does not remove the act from being within the power of the accountable person; rather, it confirms his power over it. So let this be preserved, for it is important.

{وَإِن تَكُ حَسَنَةً}—the hidden pronoun in the defective verb returns to al-mithqal. It is feminine only to accord with the meaning, for it is as if it said: "And if there be a weight of a dharr of good." It is also said: It is because a possessive noun may acquire femininity from its possessive complement if it is a part of it, such as in [the verse]: kama sharaqat sadr al-qanati min al-dami (as the shaft of the spear turned bloody). Or [if it is] an adjective for it, such as: {No soul will its faith benefit} in the reading of those who recite it with the ta (feminine marker). The "measure of a thing" is an adjective for it, just as "faith" is an adjective for "soul." It is also said that the pronoun is feminine because the predicate is feminine; but it was objected that the feminine gender of the predicate only follows the feminine gender of the subject—if the subject's gender were due to the predicate, it would be circular reasoning. The answer given is that this applies when it is intended to be purely descriptive, but "good" (hasanah) has become primarily a noun, and thus it is attached to the category of immutable nouns where agreement is not observed, such as: al-kalamu huwa al-jumlatu (speech is the sentence). It is also said: The pronoun returns to the possessive complement, which is clearly feminine.

The nun at the end of the verb was dropped—irregularly—by analogy to the weak letters (huruf al-‘illah), due to the nasalization (ghunnah) and silence (sukun), and because it is among the additive letters. The rule would have been the return of the [long] vowel (waw) deleted due to the meeting of two silent letters after the deletion of the nun, but they violated the rule in this case as well, out of a desire for ease in what is frequently repeated. Yunus permitted the deletion of the nun from this verb even in [poetry]... Sibawayh claims this is a necessity of meter. Ibn Kathir recited {hasanatun} in the nominative, on the basis that {taku} is complete—i.e., "And if there exists or occurs a good deed."

{يُضَاعِفْهَا}—[He multiplies it] many times over, until He brings it, as narrated from Abu Hurayrah, to two million good deeds. He meant multiplication, not limitation. The intent is the multiplication of its reward, for the multiplication of the good deed itself—such as making a single prayer into two, for example—is something inconceivable, even if some investigators incline toward it. What is in the Hadith, that the Most Merciful nourishes the date of charity until it becomes like the mountain, is understood this way, for it is certain that it was eaten, and the possibility of returning the non-existent is far-fetched. Likewise, the recording of its reward as multiplied. This multiplication is not the multiplication of duration according to the Imam, for duration is infinite, and doubling the infinite is impossible. Rather, it means that He (Exalted be He) multiplies it according to measure; for instance, if he deserves ten parts of reward for his obedience, He makes it twenty or thirty or more. It is also said: It is multiplication according to duration, in the sense that He (Exalted be He) does not cut off the reward of the good deed for infinite durations, not that He (Exalted be He) multiplies its duration—to avoid the Hadith regarding the impossibility of doubling what has no end.

On this view, His saying: {and gives from Himself a great reward} is a conjunction to explain the reward granted by grace, which is the increase in measure, following the explanation of the entitled reward, which is the giving of its like one after another for eternity. Naming that a "reward" is a metaphor of proximity, because it is additional to and follows the reward. According to the first view, some consider it to be of the method of ‘atf al-tafsir (explanatory conjunction), meaning: He multiplies the reward of that good deed by giving what is extra from His grace. They claimed that the statement of "entitled reward" is the doctrine of the Mu'tazilah and does not align with the doctrine of the community (Ahl al-Sunnah); but this is nothing, for the community also speaks of entitlement, but by the requirement of the promise which He does not break. By this, the promised reward becomes as if it were a right for the servant, just as it is also so by the requirement of generosity, as it is said: "The promise of the generous is a debt." Yes, interpreting the "reward" in the way mentioned is not without far-fetchedness, and what leads to it is the avoidance of redundancy. The Imam also said: This multiplication is of the species of delights promised in Paradise. As for this great reward which He gives from Himself, it is the delight attained through witnessing [Allah] and immersion in love and knowledge.

In short, that multiplication is an indication of physical joys, and this reward is an indication of spiritual joys; this is not devoid of beauty. Ladun means "at" (‘inda), and some distinguish between them, saying that min ladun is stronger in indicating proximity. For this reason, one does not say ladayya mal (I have wealth) unless it is present, unlike ‘inda. You say: hadha al-qawlu ‘indi sawab (this saying is correct to me), and you do not say ladayya. Al-Zajjaj said this, but it was examined by the fact that the use of ladun in non-spatial contexts is widespread, such as His saying: {We have taught him knowledge from Us}. Unless what al-Zajjaj said is interpreted as the dominant usage. Ibn Kathir, Ibn ‘Amir, Ya’qub, and Ibn Jubayr recited yuda‘‘ifuha (He doubles it) with the doubling and intensification of the ‘ayn. The choice according to the linguists and al-Farisi is that they mean the same thing. Abu ‘Ubaydah said: da‘afa requires many times, and ad‘afa requires twice. This was rejected, as it is the opposite of the language: "multiplication" (muda‘afah) requires an increase in reward, so if you intensify the structure, it indicates abundance in that; thus it requires the repetition of the multiplication. Previous discussion has provided what will benefit you, so remember.