Al-Baqarah: (270) And whatever you spend...

Know that the Almighty, after establishing that spending must be from the best of wealth, first urged [against the opposite] by His saying: {Nor do you intend [to give] the vile of it} (Al-Baqarah: 267), and secondly by His saying: {Satan threatens you with poverty} (Al-Baqarah: 268). He then urged a third time by His saying: {And whatever you spend of expense or whatever vow you make, indeed, Allah knows it}.

There are several issues in this verse:

Issue 1: Regarding His saying {Indeed, Allah knows it}

Its conciseness implies a great promise for the obedient and a severe warning for the rebellious. This is evident in several ways:

1. Allah, the Exalted, knows the intention of the giver—whether it is sincerity and servitude, or showing off and seeking reputation.
2. His knowledge of the quality of the giver's intention necessitates the acceptance of those acts of obedience, as He says: {Indeed, Allah accepts only from the righteous} (Al-Ma'idah: 27), and {So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, And whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it} (Al-Zalzalah: 7, 8).
3. Allah knows the measure of reward and punishment deserved based on those motives and intentions, so He neglects nothing thereof, nor is anything obscure to Him.

Issue 2: Why He said {Indeed, Allah knows it} and not {knows them}

This is for two reasons:

1. The pronoun refers back to the last noun mentioned, similar to His saying: {And whoever earns a sin or an error and then casts it upon an innocent person...}. This is the view of Al-Akhfash.
2. The pronoun refers back to what is implied in {And whatever you spend of expense}, as it is a noun, like in His saying: {And what He revealed to you of the Book and wisdom admonishes you thereby} (Al-Baqarah: 231).

Issue 3: The Vow (Nathr)

A vow is what a person obligates upon himself. It is said: nathara yanthuru. Its origin is related to fear, as a person only binds himself out of fear of falling short in something important to him. And I warned the people (andhartu al-qawm) with frightening admonition.

In Sharia, vows are of two types: specified and unspecified.

1. Specified: When one says, "It is incumbent upon Allah for me to free a slave," or "It is incumbent upon Allah for me to perform Hajj." In this case, fulfilling what was specified is obligatory, and nothing else suffices.
2. Unspecified: When one says, "I vow to Allah that I will not do such-and-such," and then does it, or says, "It is incumbent upon Allah for me to make a vow," without specifying it. In this case, the expiation of an oath is required, based on the Prophet's saying (PBUH): "Whoever makes a vow and specifies it, he must fulfill what he specified, and whoever makes a vow and does not specify it, he owes the expiation of an oath."

Regarding His saying: {And the wrongdoers will have no helpers}

This contains two issues:

This wrong (Zulm) is of two types:

1. Wronging oneself, which occurs in all sins.
2. Wronging others, such as not spending, or diverting spending from the deserving to others, or having the intention of showing off or seeking reputation when spending on the deserving, or corrupting the spending through sins. The latter two cases are not considered wronging others, but rather wronging oneself.

The Mu'tazila used this verse to negate intercession for major sinners. They argued that a helper (nasir) is one who removes harm from a person. If punishment were removed from them through the intercession of intercessors, those intercessors would be their helpers, which contradicts the Almighty's saying: {And the wrongdoers will have no helpers}.

Response 1: Customarily, the intercessor is not called a helper. Evidence for this is His saying: {And fear a Day when no soul will avail another soul at all, nor will any compensation be accepted from her, nor will intercession benefit her, nor will they be helped} (Al-Baqarah: 48). Here, the Almighty differentiated between the intercessor (shafi') and the helper (nasir). Therefore, negating helpers does not necessitate negating intercessors.

Response 2: The collective group of wrongdoers has no helpers; so why do you claim that some wrongdoers have no helpers?

• If it is argued: The words "wrongdoers" (al-zālimīn) and "helpers" (ansār) are plural. When a plural confronts a plural, the individual is distributed to the individual, meaning: "No wrongdoer has any helper."
• We reply: We do not concede that confronting a plural with a plural necessitates the distribution of the individual to the individual, as it is possible that the intent was only to confront the plural with the plural, not the individual with the individual.

Response 3: This evidence negating intercession is general regarding everyone and at all times. The evidence affirming intercession is specific regarding some people and at some times. The specific takes precedence over the general. And Allah knows best.

Response 4: As we have explained, a general term is not definitive in encompassing everything (istighrāk), but rather indicates a strong probability (dhann qawī). Thus, the evidence becomes presumptive (dhannī), whereas the issue is not presumptive. Therefore, relying on it is invalid.

Ansār is the plural of nasīr, just as ashrāf is the plural of sharīf, and aḥbāb is the plural of ḥabīb.

7 < { If you disclose acts of charity, how excellent it is! But if you conceal them and give them to the poor, it is better for you. And He will remove from you some of your misdeeds. And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted.} > 7