ﲬ ﲭ ﲮ ﲯ ﲰ ﲱ ﲲ ﲳ ﲴ ﲵ ﲶ ﲷ ﲸ ﲹ ﲺ ﲻ ﲼ ﲽ ﲾ ﲿ ﳀ ﳁ
And what prevents their expenditures from being accepted from them but that they have disbelieved in Allah and in His Messenger and that they come not to prayer except while they are lazy and that they do not spend except while they are unwilling.
Tafsir
Verse range: 9:54
It may be intended here that what is meant is the perfect [cause], which is disbelief. This is a clarification and confirmation from the Almighty regarding that, and the exception is from the most general of things; meaning, nothing prevents their expenditures from being accepted, of all things, except for their disbelief. The verb mana‘a (to prevent) takes two objects directly, but here it takes the second with a preposition (min or ‘an). When it takes a preposition, it is correct to say: "He prevented him from his right" or "He prevented his right from him," because it takes the meaning of standing between them or protection; there is no inversion here, as some might imagine. It is permissible, in the current context, for it to be transitive to the second object directly, or for a preposition to be implied, as the omission of a preposition with an (that) and anna (that) is a standard and regular rule.
Abu al-Baqa’ allowed that (an tuqbala) be a substitute of inclusion (badal ishtimal) for the [pronoun] hum in (mana‘ahum), though this contradicts the apparent meaning. The subject of mana‘a is that which is in the scope of the exception. He also suggested it could be the pronoun referring to Allah, the Almighty, and (wa annahum kafaru) being implied as li-annahum kafaru (because they disbelieved).
Hamzah and al-Kisa’i read (yuqbal) with a ya’ (masculine), because the feminization of al-nafaqat (expenditures) is not real, and it is separated from the verb by the prepositional phrase. It was also recited as (nafaqatuhum) in the singular. Al-Sulami read (an yaqbala minhum nafaqatihim) with the verb in the active voice and the expenditures in the accusative case; the subject [of the verb] being either the pronoun of Allah, the Almighty, or the pronoun of the Messenger—upon the view that acceptance is equivalent to taking.
{And they do not come to the obligatory prayer except while they are lazy}—meaning, except in a state of being lethargic. {And they do not spend except while they are unwilling}—to spend, because they do not hope for reward for them [the prayer and the spending], nor do they fear punishment for neglecting them.
These two sentences are included within the scope of the reasoning (ta‘lil). This poses a difficulty: since disbelief is a sufficient cause for non-acceptance, what is the point of providing the three matters [disbelief, laziness in prayer, and unwillingness in spending] as reasons? For when a sufficient cause is present, others have no effect. The Imam replied that this objection is directed at the Mu‘tazilah, who hold that disbelief, by virtue of being disbelief, necessitates this ruling. As for the Ahl al-Sunnah, it is not so, for they say: these causes are indicators (mu‘arrifat), not independent causes (mujibat) for reward or punishment, and it is permissible for multiple indicators to converge on one thing. To argue that these two were mentioned merely for the sake of condemnation and are not within the scope of the reasoning—even if it resolves the difficulty for the Mu‘tazili view—is contrary to the apparent meaning, as is evident.
If it is asked: "Unwillingness is the opposite of willingness, yet these hypocrites were previously described as 'willing' [in the verse Anfiqu taw‘an aw karhan], and here they are described as 'not spending except while they are unwilling,' and this appearance suggests a contradiction." The response is: what is meant by their 'willingness' is that they spend without being compelled by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, not that they spend with desire; thus, there is no contradiction. Some researchers said regarding this: the saying of the Almighty (Spend, willingly or unwillingly) does not prove that they spend willingly; rather, it merely presents their state as an alternative between the two. The claim that this alternation negates certainty is open to examination; similar to when you say, "Whether you do good or do evil, I will not visit you," even if one of them definitely does not happen. The alternation is to broaden the scope [of the statement], and this is indeed a broadening of the scope.
