Tafsir of Al-Mutaffifeen 83:2

"Those who, when they take a measure from people, demand it in full..." This is either a specific description of the mutaffifin (those who give short measure) concerning whom the verse was revealed, or a descriptive characteristic explaining their state and clarifying the manner of their short-changing, for which they deserved the wayl (woe). It means: when they take from people—by way of purchase and the like—what they take by measure, they take it full and complete.

The substitution of the word "on" (‘ala) here is said to be for the purpose of incorporating the meaning of "seizing" or "dominance" (istila’) into the act of measuring, or to indicate that this is a measuring that is harmful to people. It is not considered a condition of harm, as that would not alter the meaning, but rather it is so in reality by virtue of the answer [to the condition], based on the fact that what is intended by "demanding in full" (istifa’) is not merely taking one’s due in full without deficiency, but rather the mere act of taking it full and complete, in any manner they intended, using any available deceitful means. They used to do this by pressing the measured goods or shaking the measuring vessel, and so forth.

It is also said that this is because their measuring is a right they have over the people. Al-Farra’ states that "min" (from) and "‘ala" (on/against) can be used interchangeably in this context; thus, one says, "I measured ‘alayhi (against him/on him)," meaning: I took what was owed by him by measure, and "I measured minhu (from him)," meaning: I obtained it from him by measure. This has been criticized, as it implies that their act of measuring—before they had any claim against the people by way of purchase or the like—would not be included, even though that was common among them. Furthermore, it implies that the meaning of istifa’ is taking their property from the people in full without deficiency, which is the immediate understanding of the term when used absolutely in a context of rights, and thus it would not be the focus of their condemnation and the invocation of woe against them. Interpreting their property rights as what they will have against them is far-fetched and serves no purpose; for the consideration of the goods being theirs, whether presently or in the future, necessitates that istifa’, in the aforementioned sense, be inevitable.

I say: Setting aside the fact that the verse was revealed concerning those mutaffifin whose characteristic was to take people’s measured goods in full as they pleased, there is no harm in interpreting it as indicating that the taken object is a right, whether presently or in the future. The fact that the immediate understanding of istifa’ is taking one's property in full without deficiency is granted, but it does not harm [the argument]. As for the claim that it would not be a focus for their condemnation and the invocation of woe, we say: the focus of the condemnation is what the totality of the conjoined clauses contains. The expression is like saying, "Such a person takes his right from people in full, and gives them their right deficiently." This is a common idiom for condemnation; in fact, the condemnation through it is more severe than by saying, "He takes it deficiently." That it might be a lesser condemnation than saying "He takes extra and gives deficiently" does not matter, as is not hidden. Then it is said that in most cases, one’s measuring from another is a right of theirs in one way or another, and perhaps Al-Farra’s statement is built upon that. Contemplate this.

It was suggested that "on" (‘ala) is connected to "they demand" (yastawfun), and its placement before the verb is to signify exclusivity—that is, they demand in full specifically against the people, whereas for themselves, they demand in a [different] way. This was criticized on the grounds that restriction (qasr) through the fronting of a prepositional phrase only occurs when the verb could also relate to something other than that phrase, in the same way it relates to it, and the fronting is intended to restrict it via reversal, singling out, or specification, as the context requires. There is no doubt that istifa’, which means taking in full, is not imaginable as being performed against themselves such that the fronting would imply restriction to the people. Moreover, the discourse is occurring regarding the verb, not the object of the verb.

It was answered that the intention of istifa’ when construed with "on" (‘ala) is that of causing harm. It is as if it were said: "When they measure, they harm people specifically, and they do not harm themselves; rather, they benefit themselves." Restriction by way of reversal is possible here, and causing harm is something that can be directed toward oneself just as it can be directed toward others, even if the means of harm differ—in that they harm themselves by taking the deficient [measure], and they harm the people by taking the surplus. Furthermore, the exclusivity of what the verb acts upon is the focus of the condemnation and the invocation of woe; this is how the objection regarding what is contained in the added clause is answered. The weakness of this is apparent, so ponder it.