Al-Baqarah: (215) They ask you what they should spend...

Know that when the Almighty magnified the necessity for every accountable person to turn away from the fleeting desires of this world and engage in seeking the Hereafter, even to the extent of sacrificing life and wealth for it, He then proceeded to clarify the rulings, starting from this verse until His saying: {Have you not seen those who left their homes} (Al-Baqarah: 243). This is because it is the custom of the Qur'an to interweave the clarification of Monotheism (Tawhid), admonition and advice, and legal rulings, so that each element strengthens and confirms the others.

The First Ruling

Regarding expenditure (Infaq), it is this verse, and it contains several issues.

Al-Kalbi narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse was revealed concerning 'Amr ibn al-Jamuh, who was a very old, frail man—the one who was martyred on the Day of Uhud—and he possessed great wealth. He asked, "What shall we spend of our wealth, and where shall we place it?" So this verse was revealed.

1. One opinion: That {Mā} and {Dhā} are treated as a single word, and the position is accusative (Nasb) because of the verb yunfiqūn (they spend). The evidence for this is that the Arabs say, ‘ammādhā tas’al? (About what do you ask?), retaining the alif in {Mā}. If {Mā} and {Dhā} were not treated as a single word, they would have said ‘amādhā tas’al? by dropping the alif, just as they dropped it in the Almighty's saying: {About what do they ask one another?} (An-Naba: 1) and {In what are you concerned with its reminder?} (An-Nazi'at: 43). Since they did not drop the alif from the end of {Mā}, you know that it is treated as a single word with {Dhā}, and the alif was not dropped because it is not at the end of the word. Dropping occurs only when it is at the end, unless it is in poetry, like the saying:

   A base man stood insulting me, like a pig wallowing in ashes.

2. The second opinion: That {Dhā} means "the one who" (alladhī), and {Mā} is in the nominative case (Raf') as the subject, and {Dhā} is its predicate. The Arabs sometimes use {Dhā} to mean "the one who," saying, Man dhā yaqūlu dhāka? (Who is the one who says that?). According to this, the meaning of the verse would be: "They ask you, 'What is the one whom they spend upon?'" (Though the context implies "What is the thing they spend?").

The answer is in several ways:

1. The verse contains what answers the question, and an addition is appended to complete the intended purpose. The phrase {Whatever you spend of good} is the answer to the question. However, that spending is not complete unless it is directed to a deserving recipient. Therefore, when Allah mentioned the answer, He followed it up by mentioning the recipient to complete the clarification.
2. Al-Qaffal said: Although the question was phrased with {Mā} (What), the intended meaning was to ask about the manner or recipient, because they already knew that the money ordered to be spent was a form of worship directed to Allah. Since this was known, the thought would not turn to what the money itself is. Thus, what is sought by the question must be where it is spent. In this case, the answer corresponds to the question. A parallel is His saying: {They said, "Call on your Lord for us to make clear to us what it is. Indeed, cows have become similar to us." He said, "He says, 'It is a cow neither trained to plow the soil nor to water the field...'} (Al-Baqarah: 70-71). This answer matched that question because it was known that a cow is an animal whose description is known. Thus, {What is it?} cannot be interpreted as seeking its essence (Māhiyyah), so it must mean seeking the characteristic that distinguishes that cow from others. Similarly here, since we know they were aware of what they were commanded to spend, it must be concluded that their intent by saying {Mādhā yunfiqūn} was not to seek the essence of the thing, but the recipient. Hence, the answer is appropriate.
3. It is possible that the meaning is: They asked this question, and it was as if they were told: "This question is flawed. Spend whatever you wish, but on the condition that it is lawful money, and on the condition that it is spent on the proper recipient." This is like a person in good health asking a doctor, "What should I eat?" The doctor replies, "Eat twice a day." The meaning is: Eat whatever you like, but under this condition. Similarly here, the meaning is: Spend whatever you wish, on the condition that the recipient is as specified.

After parents, the Almighty mentioned the nearest relatives. The reason is that a person cannot attend to the needs of all the poor; rather, he must prioritize some over others, and prioritization requires a basis for preference. Kinship serves as a basis for preference in several ways:

1. Kinship is a likely source of close association, and association is a means for each party to be aware of the other's condition. If one is rich and the other poor, the poor person's awareness of the rich person is more complete, and vice versa. This is one of the strongest motivations for spending.
2. If the poor relative's side is not considered, the relative will need to turn to others, which is a source of shame and disgrace for him. Thus, it is better to take responsibility for their needs to avert harm from oneself.
3. A relative is like a part of oneself, and spending on oneself is prioritized over spending on others. For this reason, spending on a relative is prioritized over spending on a distant person.

Then, after the nearest relatives, Allah mentioned the orphans. This is because, due to their young age, they are unable to earn, and because they are orphans, they have no one to earn for them. The child whose father has died has lost both the earner and the means of earning, and is prone to ruin.

After them, the Almighty mentioned the needy (Masakin). The need of these people is less than the need of orphans because their ability to acquire resources is greater than that of orphans.

Then, the Almighty mentioned the wayfarer (Ibn al-Sabil), because due to his separation from his homeland, he may fall into need and poverty.

This is the correct order established by Allah regarding the manner of expenditure. After detailing this beautiful and complete specification, He followed it with a general statement, saying: {And whatever good you do, indeed, Allah is knowing of it.} Meaning, whatever good you do, whether to these mentioned categories or others, seeking reward from Allah and fleeing His painful punishment, Allah is knowing of it. "Knowing" (Al-'Alim) is an intensification of being knowledgeable, meaning nothing, not even an atom's weight in the earth or the heavens, is hidden from His knowledge, so He will reward you with the best recompense, just as He said: {Indeed, I will not allow to be lost the work of any who works, whether male or female} (Al 'Imran: 19) and {So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it} (Az-Zalzalah: 7).

1. Abu Muslim said: Spending on parents is obligatory when they are incapable of earning or possessing wealth. The "nearest relatives" mentioned refer to children and grandchildren, whose maintenance may become obligatory when they lack wealth. If we interpret the verse this way, the claim that it is abrogated by the verse of inheritance has no basis, because this maintenance is obligatory during life, whereas inheritance takes effect after death. Furthermore, what is received after death is not described as maintenance (Infaq).
2. The intended meaning could be that whoever desires to draw near to Allah in the matter of spending, it is best for him to spend in these prioritized categories, starting with the most important. In this case, it refers to voluntary charity (Tatawwu').
3. It could mean that the obligation applies to parents and nearest relatives in terms of sufficiency (Kifayah), and what is spent on orphans and the needy is considered Zakat (obligatory charity).
4. It is possible that spending on parents and relatives refers to encouraging the maintenance of kinship ties, while what is spent on orphans and the needy refers to pure charity. The apparent meaning of the verse is susceptible to all these interpretations without requiring abrogation.

The Second Ruling

Regarding fighting (Qital):