Al-Baqarah: (263–265) Kind Word and Forgiveness...

As for the "kind word" (القول المعروف), it is the speech that hearts accept and do not reject. Here, it means responding to the asker with a beautiful and good manner. 'Ata said it means a good promise.

As for "forgiveness" (مغفرة), there are several interpretations:

1. If the poor person is turned away without getting what they sought, it causes them distress, which might lead them to use harsh language. Thus, one is commanded to pardon the poor person's harshness and overlook their offense.
2. It means attaining forgiveness from God due to responding beautifully.
3. It means concealing the poor person's need and not exposing their situation (dishonoring them). The "kind word" is to turn them away in the best manner, and "forgiveness" is not to expose their state by mentioning their condition to someone whom the poor person would dislike knowing about their situation.
4. The address in "A kind word" is to the one being asked (the giver) to respond to the asker in the best way. And "and forgiveness" is an address to the asker, excusing the giver for that refusal, as the giver might not have been able to give at that moment.

Then, the Almighty explained that doing these two things (kind word and forgiveness) is better for a person than charity followed by harm. The reason for this preference is that if one gives charity and then follows it with abuse, they have combined benefit and harm. Perhaps the reward for the benefit will not outweigh the punishment for the harm. However, the "kind word" involves benefit because it conveys happiness to a Muslim's heart, and it is not accompanied by harm, making it better than the first case.

It is known that some people said this verse concerns voluntary charity (التطوع), because obligatory charity (الواجب) cannot be refused, nor can the asker be turned away from it. It is also possible that it refers to obligatory charity, which might be redirected from one needy person to another.

Then He said: "And Allah is Free of need" (والله غني) of the charity of His servants; He only commanded you with it so He may reward you for it. "Forbearing" (حليم), if He does not hasten punishment upon one who boasts (يمن) and harms with his charity, which is a sign of His displeasure and a warning to him.

Then the Almighty described two types of spending:

1. That which is followed by boasting and harm.
2. That which is not followed by boasting and harm.

He explained the state of each type and provided a parable for each.

Regarding the first type, which is followed by boasting and harm, He said: "Forbearing. O you who have believed, do not invalidate your charities by boasting and causing injury, like one who spends his wealth to be seen by people and does not believe in Allah or the Last Day." (2:264)

In this verse, there are several issues:

The Judge (القاضي) said that the Almighty strongly prohibited invalidating charity by boasting and causing injury, removing any doubt for the Murji'ah (a sect that believed good deeds were not essential for faith). He clarified that boasting and injury invalidate the reward of the charity, even though the charity itself has already occurred. Since the reward is future, it can be invalidated by subsequent boasting and injury.

The Almighty provided two parables for how the reward of charity is invalidated by boasting and injury:

1. The one who spends his wealth to be seen by people and does not believe in Allah or the Last Day. The invalidation of the reward for this hypocritical disbeliever is more apparent than the invalidation of the reward for one who follows charity with boasting and injury.
2. The parable of the smooth rock (الصفوان) covered with dust and soil, which is then struck by a heavy downpour, washing away the dust until it appears as if no dust or soil had ever been on it.

The disbeliever is like the rock, and the dust is like that spending. The downpour (الوابل) is like the disbelief that nullifies the deeds of the disbeliever, or like the boasting and injury that nullify the reward of the spender. Just as the downpour removed the dust from the rock, boasting and injury nullify the reward of spending after it has been earned. This is explicit proof for the doctrine of Iḥbāṭ (nullification of deeds) and Tafkīr (making deeds void).

Al-Jubba'i said that just as this text proves our position, reason also dictates it. If someone obeys and disobeys, and they deserve the reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience, they would deserve two opposites. The condition for reward is pure, eternal benefit accompanied by honor, and the condition for punishment is pure, eternal harm accompanied by humiliation. If nullification did not occur, the deserving of two opposites would result, which is impossible. Furthermore, when God punishes him, He prevents him from receiving the reward. Preventing reward is injustice, but the punishment is justice. Thus, this punishment must be just in that it is his due, and unjust in that it prevents the reward, meaning he is unjust through the very act in which he is just—which is impossible. Therefore, our position on nullification and making deeds void is proven by this text and by reason. This is the view of the Mu'tazilah.

Our companions said that "Do not invalidate" (لا تبطلوا) does not mean prohibiting the removal of the reward after it has been established. Rather, it means performing the deed in a void manner from the beginning. If one intends hypocrisy (الرياء) in charity, the deed is invalid from its inception.

Our companions presented several arguments against the Mu'tazilah's view:

1. If the subsequent event (الطارئ) does not negate the original state (النافي), the subsequent event does not necessitate the removal of the original state. If there is a contradiction, removing the subsequent event is not necessarily prioritized over removing the original state; sometimes, removing the subsequent event is easier (like pushing away rather than lifting).
2. If the subsequent event nullifies the original reward, it must nullify either what has already occurred in the past (impossible, as the past is gone) or what exists in the present (impossible, as it would mean combining non-existence and existence in the present moment) or what will occur in the future (impossible, as the future is non-existent now).
3. The condition for the subsequent event to occur is the removal of the original state. If the removal of the original state is caused by the subsequent event, this leads to a vicious circle (الدور), which is impossible.
4. If the subsequent event nullifies the prior reward, either this nullification is partial or total.
   • Partial nullification (Abu Hashim's view): This is false because the components of deserving reward are equal in essence. If the subsequent event targets only some parts while others remain equal, it implies favoring one possibility over another without a reason (ترجيح الممكن من غير مرجح), which is impossible.
   • Total nullification (Abu Ali al-Jubba'i's view): This is also false. If the subsequent punishment removes the prior reward, and that prior reward has no effect in removing the subsequent punishment, then the deed that earned the prior reward yields no benefit whatsoever—neither in bringing reward nor averting punishment. This contradicts the explicit text: "So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it" (Al-Zalzalah: 7). It is also contrary to justice, as the servant endures the hardship of obedience but sees no effect from it.
5. You (Mu'tazilah) say that a small sin nullifies some parts of the reward but not others. This is impossible because the parts of deserving reward are equal in essence. Singling out some parts for nullification without a reason is impossible. Thus, either the small sin nullifies all the reward (which is agreed to be false) or it nullifies none of it (which is what we seek).
6. If the punishment for a major sin is greater than the reward of the preceding deed, either some parts of the punishment nullify the reward, or all of it does.
   • The first is false (as per point 5, favoring parts without reason).
   • The second is false because two independent causes (two parts of punishment) would be acting upon one effect (nullifying one part of the reward), which is impossible as each cause is sufficient on its own.
7. There is no contradiction between these two entitlements. If a master tells his slave to guard property, and then an enemy attacks the master, and the slave fights and kills the enemy, the slave deserves praise for saving the master, and blame for exposing the property to theft. Both entitlements stand, and the rational people resort to prioritizing (الترجيح) or compromise (المهايأة), not denying one entitlement entirely.
8. The cause of the entitlement is the preceding action. The subsequent event either affects the efficacy of that past action in demanding entitlement or it does not.
   • If it affects the efficacy in the past, it means acting upon the past, which is impossible.
   • If it does not affect the efficacy of the past action, the entitlement must remain as it was. We cannot say the subsequent event prevents the manifestation of the effect, because if the subsequent event cannot affect the efficacy in the past, the past action (which is established) is stronger than the subsequent event, and thus the past action is more capable of resisting the subsequent event than the reverse.
9. You (Mu'tazilah) claim that drinking one cup of wine nullifies seventy years of sincere faith and obedience. This is impossible, as the reward for those years of obedience is certainly greater than the punishment for that single sin. The greater cannot be encompassed by the lesser. Al-Jubba'i argued that one major sin could outweigh all obedience because disobedience is magnified by the abundance of God's favors. However, this argument is weak. If a king bestows immense favors upon a servant who serves him faithfully for fifty years, and then the servant intentionally breaks the king's pen nib, if the king nullified all fifty years of service due to that minor offense, everyone would condemn him for injustice. Since all sins are minuscule compared to God's majesty, what they claim contradicts rational measure.
10. Faith for one hour destroys seventy years of disbelief. How then can seventy years of faith be destroyed by one hour of transgression? This is unacceptable to reason.

These are the rational proofs against the doctrine of nullification that the Mu'tazilah rely upon in this verse. We say that "Do not invalidate your charities by boasting and causing injury" has two possibilities:

1. Do not perform them in a void manner (باطلاً), meaning intending hypocrisy from the start. This interpretation does not harm us at all.
2. It means performing the charity in a way that merits reward, but then the boasting and injury that follow cause the reward of that charity to be removed.

If we accept the second interpretation, we must ask why this interpretation is preferred over the first. God provided two parables:

• The first parable, "like one who spends his wealth to be seen by people and does not believe in Allah," supports the first interpretation. It is known that this person's deed was invalid from the start because disbelief accompanied it.
• The second parable, "the smooth rock covered with dust... then a heavy downpour struck it," supports their interpretation (nullification).

However, we can argue that the dust on the rock does not represent the reward earned by the disbeliever, but rather the outward appearance of the deed, which would have earned reward had it not been coupled with the corrupt intention. The dust is like the action performed, which, in reality, is not attached or embedded in the rock; its connection is apparent but not real. Similarly, spending coupled with boasting appears outwardly as righteousness but is not so in reality. Thus, their argument based on this verse is weak. As for their rational arguments, we have shown that there is no contradiction in holding both entitlements, which leads either to prioritization or compromise.

Ibn 'Abbas (may God be pleased with him) said: Do not invalidate your charities by boasting to God because of your charity, or by injuring that asker. The majority said: by boasting to the poor person and injuring the poor person. Ibn 'Abbas's view is plausible because if a person spends while boasting of his deed, not following the path of humility and reliance on God, admitting that it is by His grace and success, he is like one boasting to God. However, the second interpretation is more apparent.

Regarding "like one who spends his wealth to be seen by people" (كالذى ينفق ماله رئاء الناس), there are two issues:

1. It is related to an omitted word: "Do not invalidate your charities by boasting and injury, like the invalidation of one who spends his wealth to be seen by people." God clarified that boasting and injury invalidate charity just as hypocrisy and showing off invalidate it. The hypocrite spends not for God's sake. Similarly, one who follows charity with boasting and injury does not intend it for God's sake, for if his goal were God's pleasure, he would not boast or harm the poor. Thus, both situations share the characteristic that the charity was not performed for God's sake, supporting our view that invalidation means performing the deed in a void manner from the start, not performing it correctly and then having it removed.
2. The letter 'Kaf' is in the accusative case (النصب) as a circumstantial particle (حال), meaning: Do not invalidate your charities while resembling the one who spends his wealth to be seen by people.

Riyā' is a verbal noun (مصدر), like murā'āh. It means showing off your deed to others. The detailed discussion of Riyā' has already passed.

Then, after mentioning this parable, the Almighty followed it with the second parable: "Then like that of a smooth rock..." (فمثله). There are two interpretations for the pronoun in "like that of" (فمثله):

1. It refers back to the hypocrite (المنافق). God likened the boaster and the one who harms to the hypocrite, and then likened the hypocrite to the rock (الصفوان), which is the smooth stone. Al-Asma'i reported that al-Ṣafwān, al-Ṣafā, and al-Ṣafw are all the same, and all are shortened forms. Some said al-Ṣafwān is the plural of ṣafwānah, like marjān (coral) and marjānah. Then He said: "a heavy downpour struck it" (أصابه وابل). Al-Wābil is heavy rain. The earth struck by it is called mūbalah. Then He said: "and leaves it bare/smooth" (فتركه صلداً). Ṣald means smooth and dry, like a ṣald stone or a ṣald mountain (bright and smooth), or ṣaldah earth that yields no growth, like the hard rock. Ṣald al-zand is when the flint yields no spark.

This is the parable God struck for the deed of the boaster/harmer and the hypocrite. People outwardly see that they have deeds, just as they see dust on the smooth rock. But on the Day of Resurrection, all of it will vanish and be nullified because it becomes clear that those deeds were not for God, just as the downpour removed the dust from the rock.

The Mu'tazilah said the meaning is that the charity earned reward, and then the boasting and injury removed that reward, just as the downpour removes dust from the rock.

There are two ways to understand this simile:

1. The outward deed is like the dust, and the boaster/harmer/hypocrite is like the rock. The Day of Resurrection is like the downpour. This supports our view. For the Mu'tazilah, the boasting/injury is like the downpour.
2. Al-Qaffāl suggested another possibility: People's deeds are treasures for the Hereafter. One who acts sincerely casts a seed into fertile ground, which multiplies and grows until he harvests it when needed. The smooth rock is the place where the hypocrite's seed is cast; nothing grows there. The meaning is that the deed of the boaster, harmer, or hypocrite is like casting a seed onto a smooth rock covered with a little dust. When rain comes, the seed remains stored, but the ground is empty. This contrasts with the sincere person, likened to a garden on a high mound (ربوة), which yields its fruit constantly by the permission of its Lord. The deed of the boaster is like sowing on the dusty rock; when the harvest is needed, nothing is found.

Some atheists criticized the simile, arguing that the downpour cleanses the rock, making it pure, so how can God liken the hypocrite's deed to it? The answer is that the point of comparison is what we mentioned; differences beyond that point are irrelevant. Al-Qadi added that the dust on the rock provides benefits: it makes the surface better for settling, it can be used for tayammum (dry ablution), and it relates to vegetation. This last point is good, but the primary reliance is on the first.

Regarding "they have no power over anything they have earned" (لا يقدرون على شىء مما كسبوا): Over what does the pronoun refer?

1. It refers to an unmentioned entity: No creature has power over that seed cast onto the dust on the rock, because the dust (and what was in it) is gone, so no one can benefit from that seed. This supports Al-Qaffāl's second interpretation of the simile. Similarly, the boaster, harmer, and hypocrite will have no benefit from their deeds on the Day of Resurrection.
2. It refers back to "like one who spends his wealth," treating the genus (الجنس) as singular.
3. Al-Qaffāl suggested a third view: It refers back to "Do not invalidate your charities by boasting and causing injury." If you do so, you will have no power over anything you have earned. The address shifts from the second person (you) to the third person (they), similar to the verse: "Until, when you were in the ships and they sailed with them... We submerged them" (Yunus: 22).

Then He said: "And Allah does not guide the disbelieving people" (والله لا يهدي القوم الكافرين). According to their view (Mu'tazilah), this means the removal of faith. According to the Mu'tazilah, it means God leads them astray from reward and the path to Paradise due to their poor choices.

Then the Almighty said: "The example of those who spend their wealth seeking the pleasure of Allah and affirming [their belief] in their souls is like the example of a garden on a high ground..." (2:265).

When God mentioned the parable of the spender who boasts and harms, He followed it with the parable of the spender who does not do so. He explained that these spenders have two objectives:

1. Seeking the pleasure of Allah (ابتغاء مرضات الله). Ibtighā' is the intensive form of seeking.
2. Affirming [their belief] in their souls (تثبيتا من أنفسهم). There are several interpretations for this:
   • They train themselves to maintain this obedience and avoid what corrupts it, including following it up with boasting and injury (Al-Qadi's view).
   • It confirms to the believers that they are sincere in their faith. This is supported by Mujahid's reading: "and affirmation from some of their souls" (من بعض أنفسهم).
   • The soul has no stability in the station of servitude unless it is subdued through struggle. The soul desires two things: immediate life and wealth. When commanded to spend wealth, it is subdued in one aspect; when commanded to sacrifice life, it is subdued in another. Thus, some stability is achieved. This explains the inclusion of min (من), meaning that one who spends wealth for God's sake establishes part of his soul; one who spends both wealth and life establishes it entirely, as in the verse: "And strive in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives" (As-Saff: 11). This view is from the author of Al-Kashshāf and is elegant.
   • My own view when writing this: The heart's stability is only achieved through the remembrance of God, as He says: "Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest" (Ar-Ra'd: 28). One who spends for God's sake does not find heart-tranquility in the station of divine manifestation unless his spending is purely for the sake of servitude. This is why 'Ali (RA) said regarding his spending: "We feed you only for the Face of Allah; we wish from you neither reward nor gratitude" (Al-Insan: 9). And he described Abu Bakr's spending: "Except seeking the Face of his Lord, the Most High. And he will be satisfied" (Al-Layl: 20-21). When spending is for servitude, not for the ego's desire, the heart is tranquil, the soul is settled, and the soul does not conflict with the heart. This is why seeking God's pleasure was mentioned first, followed by "and affirmation in their souls."
   • It is established in rational sciences that repetition of actions leads to the formation of habits (الملكات). One who perseveres in spending for God's pleasure develops two things: the realization of this meaning, and this seeking becoming a settled habit in the soul, such that the heart immediately returns to the Divine Presence even if a heedless action occurs, because this worship becomes a habit for the spirit. This settled habit is what is meant by "affirmation of the soul," and also what is meant by "Allah makes firm those who believe" (Al-Anfal: 11). When this affirmation is achieved, the spirit in this world becomes like the spiritual angelic essences.
   • Al-Zajjaj said: It means they spend with certainty that God will not waste their deeds or disappoint their hope, because it is linked to reward, punishment, and resurrection, unlike the hypocrite who considers his spending wasted because he does not believe in reward. This certainty is what is meant by affirmation.
   • Al-Hasan, Mujahid, and 'Ata said: It means the spender is firm in giving charity, placing it with the righteous and chaste. Al-Hasan said: If a man intended charity, he would pause; if it was for God, he would give; if mixed [with other intentions], he would hold back. Al-Wahidi said this is permissible because they established themselves in seeking the deserving recipient and spending the money in its proper way.

Then, after explaining these two objectives, the Almighty struck a parable for their spending: "like the example of a garden on a high ground (بربوة) struck by a heavy downpour, and it yields its fruit twofold."

'Asim and Ibn 'Amir read it with an open Rā' (بربوة), and in Al-Mu'minun, it is إلى ربوة (language of Tamim). The rest read it with a closed Rā' (ربوة), which is the more famous dialect and the dialect of Quraysh. There are seven readings in total, including ربوة with the three vowel changes on the Rā', and رباوة with an alif, and ربو. Rabuwa means a high place. Al-Akhfash preferred the closed Rā' (ربوة) because its plural is al-Rubā, and it originates from the word rabā (to increase and rise). Hence al-Rābiyah (a mound) because its parts rise, and al-Rabu (shortness of breath) because of excess air in the chest, and al-Ribā (usury) because it takes increase.

Interpreters said that a garden on a high ground yields better and more revenue.

However, I have a difficulty with this: If a garden is on a height, it is above the water, and rivers do not reach it, and it is heavily exposed to winds, so its yield is not good. If it is in a depression (وهدة), river waters flow into it, but it is not reached by wind agitation, so its yield is also not good. A garden yields best on level ground that is neither too high nor too low. Therefore, rabuwa here does not mean a physical height, but rather that the soil is fine earth (طيناً حراً) such that when rain falls, it swells, rises, and grows (يربو وينمو). When the soil is like this, its yield increases, and the trees flourish. This interpretation is supported by two proofs:

1. God says: "And you see the earth barren; but when We send down upon it rain, it stirs and grows" (Al-Hajj: 5). What is meant by its growing (ربوها) is what we mentioned, so it is the same here.
2. This parable is set against the first one, which was the smooth rock that does not respond to rain, does not swell, and does not grow. Therefore, rabuwa in this parable means soil that swells and grows. This is what occurred to me, and God knows best His intent.

Then He said: "struck by a heavy downpour, and it yields its fruit twofold" (فأتت أكلها ضعفين).

Ibn Kathir, Nafi', and Abu 'Amr read "its fruit" (أكلها) with abbreviation (light kāf), while the rest used the heavy kāf (which is the origin). Akl (with ḍammah) means food, as it is what is eaten. God says: "It yields its fruit every season by permission of its Lord" (Ibrahim: 25), meaning its fruit and what is eaten from it. Akl in meaning is like ṭu'mah (food).

Al-Zajjaj said: "it yields its fruit twofold" means double its usual amount, as ḍi'f means its like plus more. Some said ḍi'f means double its amount. 'Ata said: In one year, it bears what others bear in two years. Al-Aṣamm said: Double what is usually produced elsewhere. Abu Muslim said: Double what was customarily expected from it.

Then He said: "But if a heavy downpour does not strike it, then a light rain" (فإن لم يصبها وابل فطل). Ṭall is small-drop rain. There are interpretations for the meaning:

1. The meaning is that even if this garden is not struck by a heavy downpour but by a lesser rain, its fruit remains the same, undiminished due to the lesser rain, because of the nobility of the soil.
2. The meaning is that if it is not struck by a heavy downpour to yield double fruit, it must at least be struck by ṭall, which yields less than the downpour's fruit. Thus, in all circumstances, it does not cease to bear fruit. Similarly, one who gives charity for God's sake, his earning is never wasted, whether it is little or much.

Then He said: "And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing" (والله بما تعملون بصير). Baṣīr (Seeing) means All-Knowing. The Almighty knows the quantity and quality of the spending, the motives behind it, and that He will recompense accordingly—good for good, and evil for evil.