Tafsir of At-Tawbah 9:85

This is an emphasis of the preceding [verse] of the same nature, and the matter is deserving of that due to the widespread affliction of loving and being amazed by what has been mentioned. Al-Farsi said: "The preceding [verse] was regarding one group, and this is regarding others, so it is not an emphasis."

The waw (and) was used here to facilitate the conjunction of a prohibition to a preceding prohibition—namely, His saying, Exalted is He, "And do not pray [the funeral prayer] over any of them..." And the fa (so) was used there [in the previous verse] to indicate sequence following His saying, "And they do not spend except while they are unwilling." Its meaning is that they do not spend except while they are unwilling to spend, so they are amazed by the abundance of their wealth and children; therefore, [the Prophet] was prohibited from the amazement that follows that.

It is also said: Here it is "and their children" without "or," because it prohibits being amazed by them together; whereas there, with the addition of "or," it prohibits each one individually. Thus, the two verses combined indicate the prohibition of being amazed by them both collectively and separately.

Here it is "to punish them" (an yu'adhibahum), while there it is "to punish them" (li-yu'adhibahum), indicating that the volition of a thing for a thing reverts to the volition of that thing itself, based on the understanding that the object of volition there is the [act of] giving, and the lam is for causal explanation—meaning, "He only intends their giving for the sake of punishment." As for if we say that the lam there is redundant, then the variation could be because the emphasis there is more profound due to the preceding [context] that serves as a cause for punishment by wealth, unlike here where that did not precede.

There, it came as "in the life of the world," while here it is "in the world," as a reminder that their life is as if it were not a life at all, and this here points to the fact that they are in the position of the dead. Ibn al-Khazin explained the secret of the variation in the two noble compositions in a way whose implications are manifest. Wealth is mentioned before children, even though children are dearer, because the need for wealth is more universal than the need for children. It is also said: Because wealth is prior in existence to them.