Tafsir of An-Najm 53:39

(And that there is not for man except what he strived for)

This is an explanation that a person is not rewarded for the work of another, following the explanation that he is not held accountable for the sin of another.

The "and" (wa) is like its predecessor [in the previous verse]. The "what" (ma) is a nominalizer (masdariyyah), though it is also permissible to consider it relative (mawsulah), meaning: "there is nothing for him except his striving," or "except that which he strove for and performed."

This has been challenged by the existence of authentic reports confirming the benefit of charity for the deceased. Among them is what Muslim, Al-Bukhari, Abu Dawood, and An-Nasa'i recorded from Aisha, that a man said to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "My mother passed away suddenly, and I believe that had she been able to speak, she would have given charity. Does she receive a reward if I give charity on her behalf?" He replied: "Yes." The same applies to Hajj; Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and An-Nasa'i recorded from Ibn Abbas that a man came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "My sister vowed to perform Hajj, but she died." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "If she had a debt, would you pay it?" He replied: "Yes." He said: "Then Allah’s right is more deserving of fulfillment."

It has been answered [to this objection] that when the other person intends that action for him, he becomes, by law (shar'an), in the position of an agent standing in his place; thus, it is as if it is his own striving. This is only possible through the general application of metaphor or by combining the literal and the metaphorical for those who permit it. It has also been answered that the striving of another only benefits the deceased because it is built upon the deceased's own striving, namely faith; thus, it is as if it is his own. That it is built upon this is indicated by what Ahmad recorded from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that Al-As ibn Wa'il vowed in the Pre-Islamic era to slaughter one hundred camels, that his son Hisham slaughtered his share of fifty, and that Amr asked the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) about this. He replied: "As for your father, if he had affirmed the Oneness of God (Tawhid) and you had fasted and given charity on his behalf, that would have benefited him."

This same answer is used to address the objection that the multiplication of reward mentioned in the verses also contradicts the restriction to one’s own striving. You are aware of the speculative nature of these answers. Some of the great investigators have said that there has come in the Book and the Sunnah what is definitive regarding the attainment of benefit from the work of others, and this contradicts the literal meaning of the verse; therefore, it [the verse] provides [only] what the worker did not give [to others].

Al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl was asked in Khurasan by Abdullah ibn Tahir about this verse alongside the Almighty's statement: "And Allah multiplies for whom He wills." He replied: "There is nothing for him by [divine] justice except what he strove for, and there is for him by [divine] grace what Allah wills." Abdullah then kissed the head of Al-Husayn.

Ikrimah said: "This ruling was [specific to] the discourse of Ibrahim and Musa (peace be upon them). As for this Ummah, a person gains from the striving of others." This is indicated by the hadith of Sa'd ibn Ubadah: "Does my mother receive [reward] if I perform voluntary acts on her behalf?" The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Yes."

Al-Rabi' said: "Man" here refers to the disbeliever. As for the believer, he has what he strove for and what others have striven for on his behalf. From Ibn Abbas, it is reported that the verse is abrogated by the Almighty's statement: "And those who believed and whose descendants followed them in faith - We will join with them their descendants." Abu Dawood and An-Nahhas have both recorded reports from him that suggest this regarding the abrogating and the abrogated, as did Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Mardawayh.

Abu Hayyan challenged the claim of abrogation, stating that it is not valid because the verse is a statement (khabar) that does not contain a legal obligation, and there is no abrogation in statements. What is imagined as an answer—that Allah informed [us] in the law of Musa and Ibrahim (peace be upon them) that reward would not be assigned to other than the worker, then assigned it to those after them from the people of our law—its resolution lies in restricting the statements, not in abrogation. For its reality is that a meaning is intended, then after that, the intention for it is lifted; this is the specification of the intent in relation to the people of the [various] laws. Understand this.

It is said that the lam (in lil-insan) implies "upon": meaning, nothing is "upon" man except his own striving. This is distant from its literal meaning and the context of the verse, as it is an exhortation to the one who turned away and gave little and stopped.

What I incline toward is the statement of Al-Husayn, and similar to it is the statement of Ibn Atiyyah, who said: "The refinement to me regarding this verse is that the anchor of the meaning is the lam in His statement: 'For man.' So when you verify the thing that a human being has the right to say, 'This is for me,' you do not find it except in his own striving. As for what comes from mercy through intercession, or the protection of a righteous person, or a righteous son, or the multiplication of good deeds, and the like, it is not for the human being, and he is not entitled to say, 'This is mine and that is mine,' except by way of metaphor and attaching it to what is literal." End quote.

It is known from the totality of what has preceded that the Mu'tazilah’s use of the verse as evidence—that if a servant assigns the reward of his work, whatever it may be, to another, it does not reach [the other] and the assignment is void—is incomplete. Likewise, Imam Al-Shafi'i’s use of it as evidence that the reward of Quran recitation does not reach the dead—which is the madhhab of Imam Malik—is [contested]. In fact, Imam Ibn al-Humam said: "Malik and Al-Shafi'i do not say that purely bodily acts of worship, such as prayer and recitation, reach [the dead], unlike other things like charity and Hajj." In Al-Adhkar by An-Nawawi (may mercy be upon him), the famous position of the Shafi'i school and a group is that it does not reach. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and a group of scholars, along with some of the Shafi'is, went to the position that it does reach. The preferred choice is for the reciter to say after finishing: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited to so-and-so." It is apparent that if he says this or something similar, like "I have gifted the reward of what I have recited to so-and-so" in his heart, it suffices.

Some require the intention to be present at the beginning of the recitation, but there is some reservation about that. Furthermore, the apparent ruling is that this applies if the recitation was not for a fee. If it were for a fee—as most people do today, where they give the memorizers of the Quran a fee to recite for their dead—then the reward does not reach, because there is no reward [for the reciter] to begin with, due to the prohibition of taking a fee for reciting the Quran, even if taking a fee for teaching it is not prohibited, as established by the seal of the investigative jurists, Sheikh Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin al-Dimashqi (may Allah have mercy on him). In Al-Hidayah, in the book of Hajj on behalf of others, there is a general statement regarding the validity of a person assigning his work to another, even prayer and fasting, according to the People of the Sunnah and the Community (Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah). Within it is what you have learned earlier.

Al-Khafaji said: "It is in need of refinement. Its refinement is that the point of disagreement is: does bodily worship accept substitution? Thus, does it fall away from the one upon whom it was obligatory by the action of another, whether with his permission or not, and whether after his life or not? This occurred in Hajj as stated in the authentic hadiths. As for fasting, it does not. As for what occurred in the hadith: 'Whoever dies and has fasting to perform, his guardian fasts on his behalf,' and likewise other acts of worship, At-Tahawi said: 'This was in the early period of Islam and then it was abrogated.' The discussion is not about fidyah (ransom) and feeding the poor, as that is a substitute. Likewise, gifting the reward, whether it is in its essence or its equivalent, it is a supplication (du'a), and its acceptance is by His grace (the Almighty and Majestic), like charity on behalf of another. Know this." End quote. Do not be heedless.