Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:93

It is said: When the prohibition of wine and gambling was revealed, the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, asked: "What about those of our brothers who died while they were drinking wine and consuming gambling?" Thus, Allah the Exalted revealed this verse. It is also said: It was revealed concerning the people who forbade themselves meats and followed the path of asceticism, such as Uthman ibn Maz'un and others. The former is the preferred view; it has been narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, Anas ibn Malik, Al-Bara ibn Azib, Mujahid, Qatada, Al-Dahhak, and a host of others.

The exegetes have a lengthy discourse on the meaning of the verse. Al-Tabarsi, whose word is relied upon, relates from the exegesis of the Ahl al-Bayt that "ma" (what) refers to permissible things, and several later scholars have chosen this view. This has been countered by the argument that it would necessitate restricting their permissibility by abstaining from other forbidden things, because of His saying, the Almighty: {if they fear God (it-taqaw)}, and the necessary consequence is false by necessity. Thus, whether "ma" is a relative pronoun or a descriptive one, it is general, and it is only specified by that condition which follows it. "Ta'ama" (they consumed), like "ta'am" (food), is used for eating and drinking, as previously indicated.

The meaning is: There is no blame upon them for what they have consumed of food or drink, whatsoever it may be, provided they fear that there be anything forbidden in it and continue in faith and righteous deeds. Otherwise, there would be no negation of blame in everything they consumed, but only in some of it. There is no obstacle in this, for the necessary consequence is the restriction of the permissibility of the whole by the condition that there be no forbidden thing in it, not the restriction of the permissibility of some of it by the abstention from some other part of it, as is necessitated by the view of the group.

The second {it-taqaw} (fear God) is a conjunction to its counterpart which precedes it, entering with it into the scope of the conditional. The intent is: "Fear what has been forbidden to them after that," while it was permissible beforehand. The "faith" (al-iman) coupled with it refers either to faith in its prohibition—with the fearing of God being mentioned first either due to its importance or because it is what indicates the new prohibition which is the object of belief—or it refers to persisting in the faith in what must be believed. The object of the third "fearing" is also what was forbidden to them after that, which was previously permissible, on the condition that what is conditioned by "fearing" each time is the permissibility of what they consumed at that time, not the permissibility of what they consumed before it, because the permissibility of some of it had been abrogated by then. "Ihsan" (excellence) is intended to mean the performance of beautiful, righteous deeds that are unified by all that has been mentioned of inward and outward actions.

The specification of these stages is not for the sake of restricting the ruling to them, but to state multiplicity and repetition, however much it may be. The meaning is that if they fear forbidden things, persist in what they are upon of faith and righteous deeds, and remain in the obedience of Allah the Exalted and in the observance of His commands and prohibitions—such that whenever something of the permissible is forbidden to them, they abstain from it, then again, and again—there is no blame upon them in what they consumed in each instance of food or drink, for there is nothing forbidden in them at the time of consumption. This was stated by our Master, the Sheikh al-Islam.

He then said: You are aware that the beautiful attributes mentioned, other than the fearing of forbidden things, have no role in the negation of blame. They are only mentioned within the scope of "if" as a testimony to the fact that those who are asked about are characterized by them, and as a praise for them and their states. This has been indicated by making those attributes follow the "fearing of God" each time, as a distinction between them and what has a role in the ruling. Although the flow of the noble discourse is by way of explicit expression to state the condition of those characterized by the aforementioned traits in the future (according to the nature of "idha ma"), it has been brought forth in the form of an answer regarding the state of those in the past, to establish the ruling in their right as part of a general legislation in a demonstrative way, based on the perfection of their fame for possessing these attributes. It is as if it were said: There is no blame upon them for what they consumed if they were in the obedience of Allah the Exalted, along with the praiseworthy traits they possess, such that whenever they were commanded with something, they received it with compliance. They only used to consume wine and gambling in their lifetimes because they were not forbidden at that time; had they been forbidden in their era, they would have abstained from them completely.

Among what indicates that the verse is for general legislation is what Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, and others narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, who said: When "There is no blame upon those who believe..." was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to me: "It has been said to me: You are one of them."

It is said that the "fearing of God" and other matters in the conditional clause are mentioned only by way of praise and commendation to indicate that the people are of that attribute, because "ma" refers to permissible things, and the negation of blame for consuming the permissible which has not been forbidden does not depend on a condition.

Ali ibn al-Husayn, Al-Naqib Al-Murtada, said: "The exegetes busied themselves with clarifying the reason for the repetition contained in this verse, thinking it was the problem therein, and abandoned what is more problematic: that the Almighty negated blame from those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they consume, provided they fear God, have faith, and do righteous deeds, even though if the permissible were done by a disbeliever, there would be no sin or burden upon him."

We have two ways to resolve this doubt. One is to add to the conditional clause that which is implied, so that the effect of the condition becomes apparent. The interpretation of the verse would be: "There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they consume and other than that, provided they fear God..." for the condition for the negation of blame must have an effect, so that when it is absent, the blame is established. We know that by fearing forbidden things, blame is negated for what one consumes; that is the condition to which nothing else is added. And since faith and righteous deeds were mentioned alongside the "fearing of God," and they have no effect on the negation of blame [for consumption], we know that what was mentioned previously was implied so that the condition would be correct and match the conditioned. For whoever fears the forbidden in what he consumes, there is no blame upon him in what he consumes, but it is possible for blame to be established upon him for what he neglected of an obligation. When we condition it on faith and righteous deeds, the blame is lifted from him in every aspect. It is not strange to omit what we have mentioned because the speech points to it; it is the habit of the Arabs to omit that which runs in this course, and the strength of the implication is sufficient without uttering it.

The second way is to make "faith" and "righteous deeds" not a true condition, even if they are conjoined to the conditional. It is as if the Almighty, when He wanted to state the obligation of faith, conjoined it to what is obligatory—the fearing of forbidden things—because they share in the nature of being obligatory, even if they do not share in being a condition for the negation of blame for what is consumed. This is an expansion in rhetoric that leaves the intellect bewildered in admiration and astonishment.

It is not hidden that there is remoteness in the second way, and that the first way is difficult, for such an omission, with the evidence he claims, is almost non-existent in eloquent speech in such contexts. It is not like the verse he cited.

The mention of "faith" after training in deeds implies that one does not abandon deeds, and the mention of "excellence" (ihsan) afterward is an indication that the frequent practice of piety and righteous deeds ends in excellence, which is to worship Allah the Exalted as if you see Him, to the end of what is in the report. In it is the chaff and the grain.

The speech they pointed to, which Al-Murtada referred to in clarifying the repetition, is extensive. Abu Ali al-Jubba'i said: The first condition relates to the past time, the second relates to persistence in that and continuity in its performance, and the third is specific to the rights of servants and what transcends to others in terms of injustice and corruption. He argued for the specificity of the third by His saying, the Almighty: {and do good (ahsinu)}, for if the "doing good" is transitive, the sins they were commanded to abstain from before it must also be transitive. This is extremely weak, as there is no clear statement in the verse that the "doing good" is transitive, nor is it impossible for it to mean the performance of good deeds and exerting oneself in them, even if it is specific to the doer and does not transcend to another, just as they say to one who has exerted himself in doing good: "You have done well (ahsanta) and acted beautifully." Furthermore, if it were conceded that the intended meaning is transitive good, why is it not permissible to conjoin a transitive act to a non-transitive one? If the Almighty had said: "Abstain from all evils and do good to people," it would not be impossible.

It is said: The first "fearing" is the abstention from intellectual sins specific to the accountable person that do not transcend him, the first "faith" is faith in Allah and in what faith is required for, and faith in the ugliness of these sins and the obligation to avoid them. The second "fearing" is the abstention from auditory [revealed] sins, and the second "faith" is faith in their ugliness and the obligation to avoid them. The third "fearing" is specific to the rights of servants. This is as you see.

It is said: The meaning of the first is abstaining from what was forbidden to them at first, while remaining firm on faith and righteous deeds, for fearing does not benefit without that. The second is abstaining from what was forbidden to them after that, such as wine and the like, and the third is faith in the prohibition of that, and persistence in abstaining from all of that, both past and new, along with the performance of beautiful deeds. This is what is meant by those who say the repetition is with regard to the three times.

It is said it is with regard to the three levels of piety: the beginning, the middle, and the end. It is said with regard to the three states: that he fears Allah and believes in Him in secret, avoiding what harms his own self in deed and belief; that he fears Allah and believes in Him publicly, avoiding what harms others; and that he fears Allah and believes in Him between himself and Allah, such that he removes intermediaries and reaches the highest levels. Due to the proximity to the Almighty in this state, "excellence" (ihsan) is mentioned therein, based on what the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) explained in the authentic report: that you worship Allah as if you see Him.

It is said: It is with regard to what is feared, because one should leave forbidden things to avoid punishment, doubtful things to avoid falling into the forbidden, and some permissible things to preserve the soul from baseness and refine it from the filth of nature.

It is said: The first refers to abstaining from disbelief, the second to abstaining from major sins, and the third to abstaining from minor sins. It is said: The repetition is merely for emphasis, and conjunction with "then" (thumma) is permissible, as Ibn Malik stated regarding the verse: {Nay, you shall come to know! Then, nay, you shall come to know!}. It is not hidden that most of these views are not appropriate for the context.

The scholar Al-Tibi mentioned that the meaning of the verse is that what is required of the believers is not asceticism regarding delicious things and the prohibition of good things; rather, what is required of them is to ascend the degrees of piety and faith to the levels of sincerity and certainty, and the paths of holiness and perfection. This is by their remaining firm in abstaining from associating partners with God, in faith in what must be believed, and in righteous deeds, to achieve the complete uprightness by which one is enabled to ascend to the level of witnessing and the paths of "worshipping Allah as if you see Him." This is what is meant by His saying, the Almighty: {and do good...}, and by it, one is granted nearness to Allah and the love of the Almighty, indicated by His saying, the Almighty: {And Allah loves the doers of good}. In this arrangement is the result of what Al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah narrated from the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Asceticism in the world is not the prohibition of the lawful nor the wasting of wealth, but rather that you are more confident in what is in the hand of Allah the Exalted than what is in your own hand."

This is very evident on the assumption that the verse is regarding the people who followed the path of asceticism, which is a weak opinion; so reflect on this.

The sentence {And Allah loves the doers of good} is, according to all interpretations, an epilogue confirming the content of what preceded it with the strongest confirmation. Some have mentioned that the apparent meaning would have been "And Allah loves them," but He placed "the doers of good" in its stead to indicate that they are characterized by that.