Tafsir of Al-Hadeed 57:10

(And why is it that you do not spend): This is a reprimand for abandoning spending, directed either at the believers who were not spending, or at those who were previously reprimanded for abandoning faith. The Almighty rebuked them for this [abandoning of spending] after having rebuked them for abandoning faith, by denying that they possessed any excuse for this either.

( أن ) is an infinitive particle (masdariyyah), not a redundant one as has been suggested and as the words of al-Akhfash might imply. The construction is based on the omission of a preposition, such that the interpreted infinitive is in a state of genitive or accusative depending on the two grammatical schools of thought. The object of "spending" is omitted because it is understood from what preceded.

His saying, the Almighty: (in the way of Allah) is for the purpose of intensifying the reprimand. The intended meaning is any good that brings them closer to Him, the Almighty—by way of explicit metaphor (isti'arah tasrihiyyah). That is: "What excuse do you have for not spending in that which is a means of proximity to Allah, when it is truly His? You are merely His successors—may He be exalted—in distributing it to the outlets He, the Majestic and Exalted, has designated, or that which was transferred to you from others and will be transferred from you to others."

(And to Allah belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth): Meaning, He inherits everything within them, and no one retains any wealth. This is assuming that "inheriting them" is a metaphor or metonymy for inheriting what is within them, because the taking of the container necessitates the taking of the contained. It is permitted that it means He inherits both them and what is within them. The first interpretation is chosen because it suffices to reprimand them; for the possession of the heavens and the earth has no relevance here.

The sentence acts as a circumstantial state (hal) for the subject or object of "do not spend," serving to emphasize the reprimand. For abandoning spending without a cause is an ugly, blameworthy act, and doing so while there exists that which necessitates spending is even more severe in ugliness and more ingrained in reprehensibility. Indeed, the explanation that all wealth in the heavens and the earth remains with Allah, the Majestic and Exalted, in the Hereafter—without any of its owners retaining anything—is more potent in obligating them to spend than the explanation that it belongs to Allah in reality or that it was transferred to them from others. It is as if it were said: "What excuse do you have for refraining from spending it in the way of Allah, the Exalted, when neither you nor anyone else will retain anything of it? Rather, all of it remains for Allah, the Majestic and Exalted." The manifestation of the Glorious Name [Allah] in the place of a pronoun is for the sake of increased confirmation and the cultivation of awe.

His saying, the Almighty: (Not equal among you are those who spent before the Conquest and fought) is an explanation of the disparity in the ranks of the spenders according to the disparity of their circumstances in spending, following the statement that they have a great reward in an absolute sense, as an incitement for them to strive for what is superior. The linking of fighting with spending is to signal that it is one of the most important components of spending, while also being in itself one of the best acts of worship, and that it is never devoid of spending. The counterpart (qasim) of "those who spent" is omitted—i.e., "Those who did so and others are not equal." It was omitted due to its obviousness and the indication of what follows it.

"The Conquest" is the conquest of Mecca, according to what has been narrated from Qatadah, Zayd ibn Aslam, and Mujahid, and this is the well-known opinion. Thus, its definition [using the definite article 'al'] is for the purpose of remembrance (li-al-ahd) or for the genus, by way of claim. Al-Sha'bi said: It is the conquest of Hudaybiyyah, and we have passed by the mention of it being called a "conquest" in Surat al-Fath, and there are some traditions that point to this.

Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduyah, and Abu Nu'aym narrated in al-Dala'il, through the path of Zayd ibn Aslam from 'Ata' ibn Yasar from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the year of Hudaybiyyah. When we were at Usfan, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: 'A day will soon come when you will belittle your deeds compared to their deeds.' We said: 'Who are they, O Messenger of Allah? Are they Quraysh?' He said: 'No, but they are the people of Yemen; they are the most tender of hearts and the softest of minds.' We said: 'Are they better than us, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'If one of them had a mountain of gold and spent it, he would not reach a mudd [a small measure] of yours, nor even half of it.' Verily, the separation between us and the people is: (Not equal among you are those who spent before the Conquest)... to the end of the verse."

Zayd ibn 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both, recited "before" (qabla) without the word "from" (min).

(Those) is a reference to "those who spent," and the use of the plural is in consideration of the meaning of "those" (man), just as the singularization of the two preceding pronouns was in consideration of its wording. The placement of the demonstrative pronoun for distant objects in the place of a regular pronoun is for glorification and to signal that the pivot of the judgment is their spending before the Conquest and their fighting. Its place is in the nominative as the subject (mubtada'), and the predicate is His saying, the Almighty: (are greater in degree)—that is, those described with those two glorious attributes are of a higher status and more majestic in rank...

(than those who spent after [the Conquest] and fought). Some have held that the subject of "are not equal" (la yastawi) is a pronoun referring to "spending"—i.e., the act of spending itself is not equal, meaning the category of spending, since some of it is before the Conquest and some is after. In this interpretation, "those who spent" (man anfaqa) is the subject, and the sentence "those are greater" is its predicate. However, this involves deconstructing the speech and departing from the apparent meaning without a necessary cause; therefore, the correct approach is what has preceded. From it, one knows by implication the disparity between spending before the Conquest and spending after it.

Those [the first group] were greater in degree than those who spent after because they did what they did at the height of the need for victory in person and wealth, due to the scarcity of Muslims, the multitude of their enemies, and the absence of that which souls naturally desire, such as abundant spoils of war. Thus, it was as if that was more beneficial and more strenuous upon the soul, and its doer was stronger in certainty regarding what is with Allah and greater in longing for it; the same is not true for those who spent afterwards.

(And to all)—meaning each of the two groups, not just the first two—(Allah has promised the best)—that is, the best reward, which is Paradise, according to what has been narrated from Mujahid and Qatadah. It is also said that it is more general than that, including victory and spoils in this world. Ibn 'Amir and 'Abd al-Warith recited "And all" (wa kullun) in the nominative. The apparent meaning is that it is a subject, and the sentence following it is the predicate, and the returner (pronoun) is omitted—i.e., "promised it" (wa'adahu), as in the saying: "And Khalid is praised—our masters [praise him] with truth, he is not praised with falsehood," meaning "praises him." The sentence is a conjunction to "those are greater in degree," and between them is a degree of congruence that does not exist in the common reading. The Basrans forbade omitting the returner from the predicate of the subject, saying it is only permissible in poetry, unlike its omission from an adjectival clause. They are [thus] hindered by this reading. As for the claim of some that "all" is the predicate of the subject, with the interpretation "and those are all," and the sentence "Allah promised" being an adjective for "all," it is a weak interpretation and involves the additional omission of an element, especially since some grammarians have forbidden qualifying "all" with a sentence because it is definite by implication—"all of them." Al-Shihab said: The correct view is what Ibn Malik went to, which is that the impermissibility of omitting the returner from the predicate of the subject is not absolute in "all" and what resembles it in terms of necessity and generality, for it is consistent in such cases, though he claimed it was an consensus, which is a place of dispute.

And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

He is All-Knowing of its apparent and hidden aspects and will recompense you according to them. Thus, the speech contains both a promise and a warning. In these verses is a demonstration of the merit of the foremost, the Emigrants (Muhajirun) and the Helpers (Ansar), which is not hidden. They are intended to be the believing, spending, fighting ones before the conquest of Mecca, or before Hudaybiyyah, based on the aforementioned disagreement.

The verse, according to what al-Wahidi mentioned from al-Kalbi, was revealed regarding Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him—that is, because of him. You know that the particularity of the cause does not necessitate the particularity of the ruling; therefore, He said "Those" to include others, may Allah be pleased with them, who were characterized by that. Yes, he is the most complete of those intended, for he spent before the Conquest and before the Hijrah all that he possessed, and he risked his own self alongside him, peace and blessings be upon him. That is why the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "No one has been more generous to me with his companionship than Abu Bakr." That is sufficient for its revelation regarding him.

In al-Kashshaf, it is stated that those are the "foremost, the first" of the Emigrants and the Helpers, about whom the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "If one of you were to spend the like of Mount Uhud in gold, he would not reach a mudd of one of them, nor half of it." Al-Tibi said: The hadith is from the narration of al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and al-Tirmidhi from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Do not revile my companions, for if one of you were to spend the like of Mount Uhud in gold, he would not reach one of them, nor half of it."

He was critiqued in al-Kashf [by stating] that according to this, it is not specific to the "foremost, the first," as he indicated in al-Kashshaf. This is based on the idea that the address in "do not revile" is not for those present or those existing in his era, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, but rather to everyone capable of being addressed, as in His saying, the Almighty: "(And if you could see when they stood)..." the verse. Otherwise, it has been said that the address necessitates presence and existence, and there must be a distinction between those being addressed with the prohibition against reviling them; they are the "foremost" who were perfect in companionship.

I say: It has become common to argue from this hadith for the merit of the Companions absolutely, based on what they said: that the addition of the plural implies comprehensiveness. The author of al-Kashf follows this, while [also] finding the matter of the address problematic. He was answered with what you have heard, and that it is on the level of the eternal address of Allah, the Almighty. However, in some reports, there is that which supports that the addressees are some of the Companions and the praised ones are others; thus, the addition is for remembrance (ahd), or by interpreting "the Companions" as those who were "perfect in companionship."

Ahmad narrated from Anas that he said: There was a discussion between Khalid ibn al-Walid and 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf. Khalid said to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf: "You boast over us due to days that you preceded us in." This reached the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so he said: "Leave my companions alone. For by Him in whose hand is my soul, if you were to spend the like of Uhud or the like of the mountains in gold, you would not reach their deeds." Then, in this hadith, there is support for the fact that "those" are those who spent before Hudaybiyyah, because his [Khalid's] Islam—may Allah be pleased with him—was between Hudaybiyyah and the conquest of Mecca, as in al-Taqrib and others. Al-Zamakhshari interpreted "the Conquest" as the conquest of Mecca, so do not be heedless.

Al-Jalal al-Mahalli said: The address in "do not revile" is to the Companions who were reviling, and he said: "He—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—lowered those who reviled them to the status of others, by way of their reviling them in a manner that did not befit them, for he gave the reason he mentioned." This is a good view, so contemplate it. And His saying, the Almighty: <<...