Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:32

"Say, 'Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah'"—namely, garments and everything with which one beautifies oneself—"which He has brought forth for His servants"—meaning, created for their benefit, such as plants (like cotton and flax), animals (like silk and wool), and minerals (like rings and armor).

"And the good things from among the provisions"—meaning the pleasurable things. It is also said: the lawful things from food and drink, such as the meat of sheep, their fat, and their milk. The verse is used as evidence that the fundamental principle regarding foods, clothing, and forms of adornment is permissibility, because the interrogative "Who" is a form of emphatic denial regarding their prohibition. It is reported from Ibn al-Faras that he said: "Those who permit the wearing of silk and khazz (silk-wool blend) for men derive their proof from this verse." It is narrated from Zayn al-Abidin (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to purchase a khazz cloak for fifty dinars, and when the weather turned warm, he would give it away as charity, seeing no harm in that, and would recite: "Say, 'Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah which He has brought forth for His servants?'" It is also narrated that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was struck [in battle] while wearing a khazz tunic.

Furthermore, when Ali (may Allah honor his countenance) sent Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) to the Khawarij, he wore his finest clothes, applied his best perfume, and rode his finest mount. When he went out to them, they confronted him, saying: "O Ibn Abbas, you were the best of people, yet you come to us in the clothing of tyrants and their mounts!" He then recited this verse. However, it is narrated that Tawus read this verse and said: "He (the Exalted) did not command you to wear silk or brocade." He (Tawus) used to strike those who circumambulated [the Kaaba] while wearing [such garments] and seize them, and he disapproved of them doing so. The truth is that anything for which no evidence of prohibition has been established is included in this "adornment," and there is no hesitation in using it as long as it does not involve pride or arrogance, as was indicated previously.

It is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went out wearing a cloak valued at one thousand dirhams. Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) used to wear a cloak valued at four hundred dinars, and he would command his companions to do the same. Muhammad [al-Shaybani] used to wear precious garments and say: "I have wives and slave-girls, so I adorn myself so that they do not look at others." The jurists have stated that it is recommended to beautify oneself, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Indeed, when Allah bestows a blessing upon a servant, He loves to see the effect of His blessing upon him." When some were asked: "Did Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) not wear a shirt with patches on it?" they replied: "He did that for a specific wisdom, which is that he was the Commander of the Faithful, and his governors would imitate him, and perhaps they would not have the wealth [to dress otherwise], so they would take from the Muslims." Yes, some Imams disliked wearing saffron-dyed clothing, and they also disliked other things, which are to be sought in their respective places.

"Say, 'It is for those who believe in the worldly life'"—meaning it belongs to them primarily, due to their increased honor in the sight of Allah, while the disbelievers, even if they share in it, do so only secondarily. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the exclusivity derived from the preposition 'lam' (in lil-ladhina - for those who believe).

"Exclusively on the Day of Resurrection"—meaning no one else will share it with them. According to al-Jubba’i, the meaning is: "It is for those who believe in the worldly life, but it is not free from worries, sorrows, and hardship; whereas it is exclusive [pure] of that on the Day of Resurrection." The word "exclusively" (khalisatan) is in the accusative case as a state (hal) from the hidden pronoun in the prepositional phrase, and the operative agent is the prepositional phrase attached to it. Nafi’ read it in the nominative case as a predicate after a predicate, or as the predicate itself, and "for those who believe" is attached to it, placed first to emphasize exclusivity and distinction.

"Thus do We explain the verses"—meaning, just as We have explained this ruling, We explain all other rulings—"for a people who know."

[This includes] the delightful meanings contained within its folds. It is also permissible that the similitude is in the vein of the Almighty's saying: "And thus We have made you a just community," and its counterparts which have been verified previously.