Al-Hashr: (7) What God has bestowed...
(What God has bestowed upon His Messenger from the people of the towns is for God, and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer...)
This is an exposition of the ruling regarding what God the Almighty bestowed upon His Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace) from the villages of the disbelievers in general, following the clarification of the ruling on what He bestowed [upon him] from the Banu al-Nadir, as recorded by Judge Abu Yusuf in Kitab al-Kharaj from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, from al-Zuhri, from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may God be pleased with him). His (may God be pleased with him) statement in a long hadith—which includes the dispute between Ali (may God honor his countenance) and al-Abbas regarding the matter of Fadak, reported by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, and others—points toward this.
The sentence is the answer to an implied question arising from what was understood from the preceding speech. It is as if someone asked: "We have learned the ruling on what God the Almighty bestowed from the Banu al-Nadir, so what is the ruling on what He, the Almighty, bestowed from others?" It was said: "(What God has bestowed upon His Messenger from the people of the towns)..." etc. This is why it was not conjoined to what preceded it, and neither the constraint of charging with horses (ijaf) nor the lack thereof was mentioned in the verse.
What is understood from the books of some Shafi'is is that what the verse covers is fay', not ghanimah (spoils of war), and they have distinguished between the two. They said: Fay' is what is obtained from the disbelievers without combat, or charging of horses and mounts, such as the jizya (poll tax), the tithe on trade, what is reached through a peace treaty without combat, or what they evacuate out of fear before the two armies meet. As for after the armies have met, it is ghanimah. Also included as fay' is the property of an apostate who was killed or died in his apostasy, or a dhimmi, a treaty-bound person, or someone granted safety who died without an heir who consumes the entire estate.
Ghanimah is what is obtained from original warring disbelievers through combat, or what is in the legal status of combat, such as the meeting of two armies or an charge from our side—but not from those with whom there is a treaty, for that belongs to them and is not subject to the one-fifth (khums) tax. Its ruling is well-known.
More than one of our scholars has also explicitly stated the difference, relaying it from al-Maghrib and others, saying: Ghanimah is what is taken from disbelievers by force while the war is ongoing; its ruling is that it must be divided by fifths, with the remainder belonging exclusively to the combatants. Fay' is what is taken from them after the war has laid down its burdens and the land has become a land of Islam; its ruling is that it belongs to all Muslims and is not divided by fifths—meaning it is all spent on their interests. Ibn Hajar reported this ruling from those other than al-Shafi'i (may God be pleased with him) among the three Imams, with the one-fifth division being based on analogy to the ghanimah which is divided by fifths according to the text, the common factor being that it returned to us from the disbelievers, and the difference in the cause (combat vs. no combat) has no effect.
The authentic reports confirm that Umar (may God be pleased with him) acted in the Sawad of Iraq according to what the verse contains, and he considered it general for all Muslims, arguing with it against al-Zubayr, Bilal, Salman al-Farsi, and others when they asked him to distribute it among the combatants along with its estates and laborers. Ali, Uthman, Talha, and the majority agreed with what he wanted; in fact, even the dissenters agreed after he addressed them, saying: "O God, suffice me against Bilal and his companions!"
Even though it is well-known in the books of Maghazi (military expeditions) that the Sawad was conquered by force—which would necessitate it being ghanimah and thus divided among the combatants—some Shafi'is said that Umar (may God be pleased with him) sought to please the hearts of the combatants until they conceded, and he returned the Sawad to its people for a tribute (kharaj) they would pay every year. [This] should be consulted and verified.
What God the Almighty has designated of that for those included in His saying: (is for God and for the Messenger) up to (the wayfarer) is the khums (one-fifth) of the fay', according to what some Shafi'is have explicitly stated. This fifth is divided into five shares: for those whom God the Almighty mentioned. His share (the Exalted) and the share of His Messenger are one. His mentioning [Himself], as narrated from Ibn Abbas and al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya, is to commence the speech for the sake of seeking blessing and favor, for unto God belongs what is in the heavens and the earth, and in it is the glorification of the status of the Messenger (upon him be peace).
Abu al-Aliyah said: The share of God the Almighty is fixed and is spent on the construction of His House, the Noble Ka'bah, if it is nearby; otherwise, it is spent on the mosque of every town where the fifth is collected. It follows from this that there would be six shares, which is contrary to what is known from the predecessors in interpreting this.
As for the share of the Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace), he had it during his lifetime by consensus, and it was one-fifth of the fifth. He would spend from it upon himself and his family, and set aside the provisions for a year—meaning for some of his wives—and spend the remainder on the interests of the Muslims. It lapsed, according to us, after his passing (upon him be peace). They said: This is because the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was such, and they are God’s trustees over His religion. Furthermore, the ruling is attached to a derived descriptor, which is "the Messenger," so the source of the derivation, which is the Messengership, is the cause, and it was not found in anyone after him. This is similar to how the Safiyy (the Prophet's personal choice from spoils) lapsed.
It is reported from al-Shafi'i that it is spent for the Caliph after him, because (upon him be peace) deserved it due to his Imamate, not his Messengership, so that it would be further removed from the suspicion of receiving a wage for delivering the Message. The majority of Shafi'is [hold that] what he (upon him be peace) had of the one-fifth of the fifth was spent on the interests of the Muslims, such as the frontier posts, judges of the lands, scholars engaged in religious sciences and their tools—even beginners—the Imams, the mu'adhdhins—even if they are wealthy—and all who are occupied with the interests of the Muslims in a manner similar to their occupation; and the weak and incapable of earning were added to them. The [distribution of] the gift is left to the opinion of the Imam, considering the abundance or scarcity of wealth, and he prioritizes the most important, then the next most important, by obligation.
The most important is securing the frontier posts. The returning of his share (upon him be peace) after his death to the Muslims is indicated by his (upon him be peace) statement in the authentic report: "I have nothing from what God the Almighty has bestowed upon you except the fifth, and the fifth is returned to you." This is true by spending it on the interests of the Muslims, just as it is true by adding it to the remaining shares to be distributed with them among the classes. It is not accepted that it is manifest for this rather than that.
(...and for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer...) These are the five shares of the khums. By "near of kin," it is intended his (upon him be peace) relatives. They are intended to be the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib, because the Prophet (upon him be peace) placed the share among them to the exclusion of the children of their brother [and his] full brother, Abd Shams, and his descendants, such as Uthman, and their half-brother from the father, Nawfal. He responded to this by saying (upon him be peace): "We and the Banu al-Muttalib are one thing," and he interlaced his fingers. This was reported by al-Bukhari. That is, they did not separate from the Banu Hashim in supporting him (upon him be peace), neither in the Pre-Islamic era nor in Islam. It is as if it were due to their increased partisanship and their standing together, until they were as if they were upon the heart of one man.
It is said: "For the near of kin" (li-dhi al-qurba) instead of "for the near ones" (li-dhawi al-qurba), which is plural. The Shafi'is say: Wealth and poverty are not conditions for this share, due to the generality of the verse and because he (upon him be peace) gave to al-Abbas, who was wealthy—in fact, it was said he had twenty slaves trading for him—and [he gave to] women, for Fatimah and Safiyyah, the aunt of his father (may God be pleased with them), used to take from it. The male is preferred, as in inheritance, on the basis that it is an entitlement due to paternal kinship, so he has the like of the portion of two females. The scholar and the child, and their opposites, are equal in it. Even if they turn away from it, it does not lapse, like inheritance. A man’s status as a Hashimi or Muttalibi is established by evidence, and a group stated that, along with it, there must be public notoriety (istifadah).
Al-Shafi'i and Ahmad say this. According to Malik, the matter is delegated to the Imam; if he wishes, he distributes it among them, and if he wishes, he gives to some of them and not others, and if he wishes, he gives it to others if their matter is more important than theirs.
Al-Muzani and al-Thawri said: The male and female are equal, and it is paid to the distant and the near among those who have kinship, and the wealthy and the poor are equal, due to the generality of the text and because the ruling attached to a derived descriptor is caused by the source of the derivation.
According to us, the "near of kin" is specific to the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib, according to the hadith, except that they do not have a separate [share], and they are not given it unconditionally. Rather, their needy, their orphans, and their wayfarers are given [from it] because they are included in (the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer). But they are prioritized over others of these classes because the three Caliphs did not set aside a specific share for them; rather, they divided the fifth into three shares: a share for the orphans, a share for the needy, and a share for the wayfarer. Ali (may God honor his countenance), during his Caliphate, did not oppose them in that, despite his opposition to them in other matters. This is interpreted as a return to their opinion, if it is correctly narrated from him that he used to say: "The share of the near of kin..." as narrated from al-Shafi'i. The benefit of mentioning them—on the view that their entitlement is for a descriptor other than kinship, such as poverty—is to dispel the illusion that a poor person among them, for example, is not entitled to anything because it is of the nature of charity (sadaqah) and is not permissible for them.
Whoever traces the reports will find much disagreement among them, including what indicates that the Caliphs used to provide for them unconditionally, which is the opinion of the scholars of the People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt). Some of our scholars chose that what is mentioned in the verse are the expenditures of the fifth, in the sense that it is not permissible for it to be spent except on the entitled ones, so it is permissible according to us to restrict it to one class—for instance, if the entire fifth were given to the wayfarer alone. The discussion is comprehensive in the commentaries on al-Hidayah.
By "orphans," the poor among them are intended. The Shafi'is said: The orphan is a minor who has no father, even if he has a grandfather. Islam and poverty or destitution are required, according to the famous view, as the word "orphan" implies need. The benefit of mentioning them while the "needy" includes them is to ensure they are not deprived, due to the illusion that they are not fit for jihad, and to single them out with a complete fifth. Illegitimate children and those whose lineage is denied are included, but not a foundling, according to the most correct view, because we have not confirmed the loss of his father, given that he is wealthy in himself through the Public Treasury (Bayt al-Mal). In establishing the status of the orphan, [the existence of] Islam and poverty must be proven by evidence. For the needy and the wayfarer, their own word is sufficient, even without an oath, unless they are accused. Yes, it appears that one who claims the loss of wealth he was known to have, or dependents, should be tasked with evidence. The end. The requirement of poverty in the orphan is explicitly stated by us in most books. The rest should be consulted.
This is [regarding the fifth]. As for the remaining four-fifths, their expenditure, according to the author of al-Kashf—who is a Shafi'i—after he chose to make "for the poor" a substitute for "the near of kin" and what is conjoined to it, is that what is contained in His saying: (And those who settled...) up to His saying, may He be exalted: (And those who came after them...) [means] that he (upon him be peace) has the authority to generalize people with it according to his choice. He said: It is for the combatants now, according to the most correct view. In the Tuhfah of Ibn Hajar, it is stated that, according to the most apparent view, it is for the mercenaries, their judges, their Imams, their mu'adhdhins, and their workers, as long as voluntary work is not found. The mercenaries are the soldiers recorded in the register for jihad because victory is achieved through them after him (upon him be peace). In the Tuhfah, it is explicitly stated that the majority hold that these four-fifths were his (upon him be peace) from the one-fifth of the fifth; thus, what he (upon him be peace) used to take from the fay' was twenty-one shares out of twenty-five. According to al-Ruwayani, he used to spend the twenty which were his (upon him be peace)—meaning the four-fifths—on interests, by obligation in one view and by recommendation in another. The Ghawali said: The entire fay' was his (upon him be peace) during his lifetime, and it was only divided by fifths after his death.
Al-Mawardi said: It was his (upon him be peace) in the beginning of his life, then it was abrogated at the end of it. Al-Zamakhshari said: The saying of God the Almighty: (What God has bestowed...) etc., is an exposition of the first sentence, meaning His saying: (And what God has bestowed upon His Messenger from them...). Therefore, the conjunction was not entered upon it; he clarified therein for the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) what he should do with what God the Almighty bestowed upon him, and ordered him to place it where the fifth of the spoils is placed, divided into the five categories. Its apparent meaning is that the sentence is an explanatory initiation, and the question is about the expenditures of what God the Almighty bestowed upon His Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace) from the Banu al-Nadir, which the first sentence informed us is a matter delegated to him (upon him be peace). It does not necessarily mean it must be divided according to the division of the spoils that were fought for with significant combat and taken by force and coercion, as the combatants requested, so that four-fifths of it would be theirs. Rather, what is placed in the position of the fifth of the spoils is the whole, not that its fifth is likewise [dealt with] while the remainder—which is its four-fifths—is for those included in His saying: (And those who settled...) up to His saying: (And those who came after them...) as you heard previously. And the intention by "people of the towns" is what is intended by the pronoun in "from them," namely the Banu al-Nadir; he shifted from the pronoun to that, as in al-Irshad, to intimate the inclusion of what is in "What God has bestowed" of their estates as well. The author of al-Kashf objected to what the apparent meaning indicates, that the verse is evidence of his (upon him be peace) order to place the whole where the fifth of the spoils is placed, and he justified the verse with what supported his school and refined the speech regarding that, so it should be consulted and contemplated.
Ibn Atiyyah said: The "people of the towns" mentioned in the verse are the people of al-Safra', Yanbu', Wadi al-Qura, and those around there of the villages of the Arabs, which are called the villages of Arinah; their ruling is different from the ruling of the properties of the Banu al-Nadir, for those were all his (upon him be peace) exclusively, while these he divided like others. It is said: The intention by "what God has bestowed upon His Messenger" is Khaybar; half of it was for God the Almighty and His Messenger (upon him be peace), and the other half was for the Muslims. What was for God, the Almighty, and His Messenger (upon him be peace) of that was al-Katibah, al-Watih, Salalim, and Wahdah, while what was for the Muslims was al-Shiqq, and it was thirteen shares, and Natah, and it was five shares. He (upon him be peace) did not divide from Khaybar to anyone of the Muslims except for those who witnessed al-Hudaybiyyah, and he (upon him be peace) did not permit anyone who stayed behind from his trip to al-Hudaybiyyah to witness Khaybar with him, except Jabir ibn Abdullah ibn Amr al-Ansari. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas. Some specified "what God has bestowed" as the jizya and kharaj.
It is from al-Zuhri that he said: "It has reached me that it is that." You have already heard that Umar (may God be pleased with him) only argued with this verse for the retention of the Sawad of Iraq in the hands of its people and the imposition of kharaj and jizya upon them, as a rebuttal to those who asked for its distribution among the combatants along with its laborers. However, that is only because the arrival of the benefit of what God the Almighty bestowed to the general Muslims was through what was mentioned, not [through] division, so understand.
In repeating the 'lam' in "for the Messenger" and "for the near of kin" along with the conjunction, there is an evident care. In it, according to what is said, is support for those who go to the view that their two shares do not lapse. We have already mentioned the reason for making the "near of kin" singular not long ago. And since the wayfarers are in the position of relatives, it was said: "and the wayfarer" in the singular, just as it was said: "and for the near of kin." Upon that is the saying: "O neighbor, we are two strangers here, and every stranger to a stranger is kin."
(...so that it may not be...) is a justification for the division. The pronoun in "it may not be" refers to what God the Almighty bestowed. That is, so that the fay' might not become (a state of wealth)—it is with a damma [on the dal] and also with a fatha—what rotates, meaning what moves for a person in terms of wealth, luck, and victory. Al-Kisa'i and the scholars of Basra said: Dawla with fatha is in kingship with damma, and dawla with damma is in kingship with kasra, or with damma in wealth and with fatha in victory. It is said: And in status. It is said: It is with damma what is circulated, like ghurfah (a handful), the name of what is scooped; and with fatha it is an infinitive meaning circulation. Al-Raghib, Isa ibn Umar, and many [others say] that they are of the same meaning. The majority of the reciters read it with the damma of the dal and in the accusative case, with the y-a at the beginning of "it may not be" (yakuna), on the basis that the subject of "it may not be" is the pronoun and "a state of wealth" is the predicate. Meaning: so that the fay' might not be wealth circulating between the rich among you—that is, between them exclusively, becoming increased by it—or so that (it may not be a state of wealth) and pre-Islamic dominance among you, for the chiefs among them used to take the spoils for themselves and say, "From the powerful." It is said: The meaning is so that it may not be something that the rich circulate exclusively among themselves, taking turns with it, such that none of the poor receive any.
Abdullah read it as "it might not be" (takuna) with the 't-a' at the beginning, on the basis that the pronoun is feminine, considering the meaning, for it intends wealth. Abu Ja'far and Hisham read it likewise and in the nominative case for "state of wealth" (dawlatun) with the damma of the dal, on the basis that kana is perfect (complete), and "state of wealth" is the agent. Meaning: so that it might not be a state of wealth. Ali and al-Sulami read it likewise as well and in the accusative for "state of wealth" (dawlatan) with the fatha of the dal, on the basis that kana is imperfect (incomplete), its subject being what you heard, and "state of wealth" is its predicate. A preposition is implied, according to the view that it is an infinitive, if it is not used metaphorically and exaggeration is not intended. Meaning: so that it might not be [something] of circulation between the rich, where they do not spend it on the poor. The apparent meaning of the justification with what was mentioned is the consideration of poverty in whoever was mentioned. His being free of it (the Exalted) is necessary, although his mentioning [Himself], may He be exalted, was for seeking blessing, according to the majority, not because He, the Almighty, has a share. Likewise, the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) is too exalted to be called poor. The well-known saying attributed to him (upon him be peace): "Poverty is my pride" has no basis. How could something like it be imagined, when the entire world does not equal, in the sight of God the Almighty, the wing of a gnat? And he (upon him be peace) is the most beloved of His creation to Him, the Almighty, until some of the Gnostics said: "He (upon him be peace) is not called an ascetic, because the ascetic is one who leaves the world, and he (upon him be peace) does not turn toward it, let alone seek it, which is necessary for leaving it." It is said: If the report were true, the intention of poverty in it would be the total detachment from all else to God the Almighty, and it is not the poverty that is the subject of the discussion. Considering it in those who follow him has no danger; indeed, it might be evidence for the view that he does not give to the wealthy near of kin, but only gives to their poor. When the speech is interpreted as we have interpreted it, it suffices in the justification that there is poverty in whoever is given something from the fay', and it does not follow that everyone who is given something from it is poor.
(And whatever the Messenger has given you, take it, and whatever he has forbidden you, refrain from it, and fear God; indeed, God is severe in penalty)
He penalizes those who disobey him (upon him be peace). Interpreting the verse as being specific to fay' is narrated from al-Hasan, and that was due to the context of the situation. In al-Kashshaf, the more excellent [opinion] is that it should be general for everything he (upon him be peace) ordered and forbade, and the matter of fay' is included in the generality. That is due to the generality of the word "whatever" (ma). Moreover, the 'wa' (and) cannot correctly be a conjunction; therefore, it is a parenthetical sentence by way of a corollary. For this reason, it was followed by the saying of God the Almighty: (And fear God) as a generalization upon a generalization; thus, it covers everything that one must fear [God regarding], and what was previously discussed enters into it in a primary entry, just as it enters into the first generality. This was also narrated from Ibn Jurayj.
The two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim), Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and others reported from Ibn Mas'ud that he said: "God the Almighty has cursed the women who tattoo and those who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck their eyebrows, and those who file their teeth for beauty, changing the creation of God the Almighty." This reached a woman from Banu Asad called Umm Ya'qub, who used to recite the Quran. She came to him and said: "It has reached me that you cursed such and such." He said: "Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) cursed, while it is in the Book of God the Almighty?" She said: "I have read what is between the two covers of the Mus'haf, and I did not find it." He said: "If you had read it, you would have found it. Have you not read the saying of God the Almighty: (And whatever the Messenger has given you, take it, and whatever he has forbidden you, refrain from it)?" She said: "Yes." He said: "For he (upon him be peace) has forbidden it."
From al-Shafi'i, it is reported that he said: "Ask me whatever you wish; I will inform you of it from the Book of God the Almighty and the Sunnah of His Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace)." Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Harun asked: "What do you say regarding the person in ihram who kills a wasp?" He replied: "God the Almighty said: (And whatever the Messenger has given you, take it, and whatever he has forbidden you, refrain from it)."
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah narrated to us from Abd al-Malik ibn Umayr, from Rib'i ibn Hirash, from Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who said: The Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) said: "Follow those who are after me: Abu Bakr and Umar." And Sufyan ibn Uyaynah narrated to us from Mis'ar ibn Kidam, from Qays ibn Muslim, from Tariq ibn Shihab, from Umar ibn al-Khattab, that he ordered the killing of the wasp. This is among the strange examples of inference, and in it—despite its flaws, like the statement of Ibn Mas'ud—is the interpretation of what is in the verse as general. From Ibn Abbas, there is also what indicates that.
It is said: The meaning then is "Whatever command the Messenger has brought you, cling to it; and whatever he has forbidden you from engaging in, refrain from it." The command may be the singular of "matters" and it may be the singular of "orders" to correspond to "he has forbidden you." It is said: The first is closer because it is not said "he gave him a command" meaning "he ordered him" except with awkwardness, as is not hidden. From the verse, it is inferred that the obligation of refraining is dependent on the realization of the prohibition, and the absence of a command is not sufficient for it. So, whatever he did not address with an order or a prohibition, he should be left alone.
