Tafsir of Al Imran 3:161

Āl 'Imrān (The Family of 'Imrān): Verse 161

And it was not for a Prophet to embezzle...

Know that after extensively urging Jihad (striving in the way of God), the Almighty followed it by mentioning the rulings related to Jihad. Among these rulings is the prohibition of Ghulūl (embezzlement/treachery in spoils of war). This verse was revealed concerning this matter, and it contains several issues:

Ghulūl means treachery. Its root implies taking something secretly. It is said, "The butcher aghalla the skin" if he leaves some flesh on it secretly, as an act of treachery. Al-Ghall (the hidden malice) is the resentment concealed in the chest. Al-Ghullālah is the garment worn underneath other clothes. Al-Ghalal is the water that flows beneath the roots of a tree because it is hidden by the foliage. To taghallala something means it permeates and becomes hidden.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever we send to perform a task and he embezzles something, he will come on the Day of Resurrection carrying it on his neck." He also said: "The gifts given to governors are ghulūl." And: "There is no liability for a borrower except for what he has embezzled (mighl)." He also said: "No ighlāl (embezzlement) and no islāl (secret theft)." Furthermore, one says, "Aghallahu" if one finds him to be a ghāll (embezzler), similar to saying, "Abkhalathu" (I found him miserly) or "Afhamtuhu" (I found him speechless).

1. Ibn Kathīr, 'Āṣim, and Abū 'Amr recited it as (يَغُلُّ - yaghullu) with a fatḥah on the yā’ and a ḍammah on the ghayn (meaning: It was not for the Prophet to embezzle/commit treachery).
2. The rest of the Seven Reciters recited it as (يُغَلُّ - yughallu) with a ḍammah on the yā’ and a fatḥah on the ghayn (meaning: It was not for the Prophet to be embezzled from/betrayed).

Differences exist regarding the occasions of revelation (Asbāb al-Nuzūl); some support the first recitation, and others support the second.

Occasions Supporting the First Recitation (Yaghullu - He embezzles):

1. It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) gained spoils in a battle and gathered the booty. The division was delayed due to some obstacles. A group came and asked, "Will you not divide our spoils?" The Prophet (PBUH) replied, "If you had the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, I would not withhold a single dirham from you. Do you think I would embezzle your spoils?" Then this verse was revealed.
2. This verse was revealed concerning the delivery of revelation. The Prophet (PBUH) used to recite the Qur'an, which contained criticisms of their religion and insults to their gods. They asked him to stop that, and this verse was revealed.
3. 'Ikrimah and Sa'īd ibn Jubayr narrated that the verse was revealed concerning a red cloak that went missing on the Day of Badr. Some ignorant people suggested that perhaps the Prophet (PBUH) took it, and this verse was revealed.
4. It is narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may God be pleased with him) through another chain that the noble people hoped the Prophet (PBUH) would specially allocate something extra to them from the spoils, and this verse was revealed.
5. It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) sent out advance scouting parties (ṭalā’i') who gained spoils. He divided them but did not allocate a share for the scouting parties, and this verse was revealed.
6. Al-Kalbī and Muqātil said: This verse was revealed when the archers abandoned their positions on the Day of Uhud seeking spoils. They said, "We fear the Prophet (PBUH) might say, 'Whoever takes something, it is his,' and that he might not divide the spoils as he did not divide them on the Day of Badr." The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Did you think I would embezzle, so I would not divide them for you?" Then this verse was revealed.

Based on the first narration, the meaning of the verse is a prohibition against the Messenger concealing anything from the spoils for himself. Based on the other three narrations, the intent is to forbid him from Ghulūl by giving to some and not others.

Occasions Supporting the Second Recitation (Yughallu - He is embezzled from):

It is narrated that when the spoils of Hawāzin fell into the Prophet's (PBUH) hands on the Day of Ḥunayn, a man embezzled a needle (mikhyaṭ), and this verse was revealed.

The Prophet (PBUH) greatly emphasized the seriousness of Ghulūl, considering it a major sin. Thawbān narrated from the Messenger of God (PBUH) that he said: "Whoever departs this world free from three things will enter Paradise: arrogance, ghulūl, and debt." 'Abdullāh ibn 'Amr narrated that a man responsible for the Prophet's baggage, called Karkarah, died. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "He is in the Fire." They went to look and found a cloak and a mantle that he had embezzled. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Return the needle and the needle-case, for they are a disgrace, a fire, and a shame on the Day of Resurrection." Ruwayfi' ibn Thābit al-Anṣārī narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "It is not lawful for anyone who believes in God and the Last Day to ride a mount from the public spoils until it becomes worn out and then return it, nor is it lawful for a man who believes in God and the Last Day to wear a garment until he wears it out and then returns it." It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) appointed Salmān over the spoils. A man came to him and said, "O Salmān, there was a tear in my garment, so I took a thread from this property to mend it. Is there any blame on me?" Salmān replied, "Everything is according to its measure." The man removed the thread from his garment and threw it back into the property. It is narrated that a man brought the Prophet (PBUH) a sandal strap or two from the spoils. The Prophet (PBUH) asked, "Did you acquire this on the Day of Khaybar?" The Prophet (PBUH) replied, "A sandal strap or two straps of Fire." A man was martyred by an arrow at Khaybar, and the people said upon his death, "Congratulations on his martyrdom!" The Prophet (PBUH) said: "No, by the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muḥammad, the cloak he took from the spoils before division will burn him with fire."

Know that two situations are excepted from this prohibition:

Exception 1: Taking food and fodder for animals according to need. 'Abdullāh ibn Abī Awfā said: "We acquired food on the Day of Ḥunayn, and a man would come and take what was sufficient for his needs and then leave." It is narrated of Salmān that on the Day of Madā’in, he acquired some loaves, cheese, and a knife, and he started cutting the cheese saying, "Eat in the name of God."

Exception 2: If one is in dire need of it. It is narrated of Al-Barā’ ibn Mālik that he struck a polytheist on the Day of Yamāmah, causing him to fall on his back. Al-Barā’ took his sword and killed him with it.

The recitation with fatḥah on the yā’ and ḍammah on the ghayn (meaning: It was not for the Prophet to betray) has two interpretations:

First Interpretation: The meaning is that Prophethood and treachery cannot coexist. This is because treachery leads to disgrace in this world and the Fire in the Hereafter, placing the soul in the lowest state of baseness. Prophethood is the highest human station, suitable only for a soul of utmost majesty and honor. Combining these two attributes in one soul is impossible; thus, Prophethood and treachery cannot coexist. This is analogous to His saying: {It is not befitting for Allāh to take a son} (Maryam: 35), meaning Divinity and taking a son do not combine. Alternatively, the lām (for) is transferred, and the meaning is: "And the Prophet was not to embezzle," similar to {It was not for Allāh to take a son}, meaning Allāh was not to take a son.

Second Interpretation: The people requested him to allocate an extra share of the spoils to them. If he had done so, it would have been ghulūl. Thus, God revealed this verse to emphasize the prohibition against him doing so. This is analogous to His saying: {If you associate others with Allāh, your deeds will surely be fruitless} (Az-Zumar: 65), and {If he [Muhammad] had fabricated some sayings concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand} (Al-Ḥāqqah: 44-45). So, {And it was not for a Prophet to embezzle} means it was not permissible for him. If it was not permissible, he would not do it. This is analogous to: {And why did you not, when you heard it, say, 'It is not for us to speak of this'?} (An-Nūr: 16), meaning it is not lawful for us.

If the interpretation of the verse based on this recitation is understood, we can state the arguments supporting this recitation:

1. Most narrations regarding the occasion of revelation state that they attributed ghulūl to the Prophet (PBUH). God clarified by this verse that this characteristic does not suit him.
2. In the Revelation, matters of this nature attribute the action to the actor, such as: {It was not for us to associate partners with Allāh}, {It was not for him to take his brother} (Yūsuf: 76), {And no soul can die except by permission of Allāh} (Āl 'Imrān: 145), {And Allāh would not have led a people astray after He had guided them} (Yūsuf: 38), and {And Allāh would not have informed you of the unseen} (Āl 'Imrān: 179). It is rare to say, "Zayd was not to strike." Given this, this verse must follow the majority usage. Abū 'Ubaydah narrated from Yūnus that he preferred this recitation, stating that in speech, one does not say, "It was not for you to strike" (taḍribu) with a ḍammah on the tā’.
3. This recitation was preferred by Ibn 'Abbās. When told that Ibn Mas'ūd recited (yaghullu - he embezzles), Ibn 'Abbās replied, "They intended to kill the Prophet, so how could they not attribute treachery to him?"

As for the second recitation, (yughallu - he is embezzled from), it has two interpretations:

First Interpretation: The meaning is: It was not for the Prophet to be betrayed.

Betrayal against anyone is forbidden, but specifying the Prophet with this prohibition has several benefits:

1. The more noble and elevated the victim, the more heinous the betrayal against him. The Messenger is the best of mankind, so betrayal against him is the most heinous.
2. Revelation used to come to him moment by moment. Whoever betrayed him might find the revelation descending concerning him, resulting in worldly disgrace alongside the punishment of the Hereafter.
3. The Muslims were extremely poor at that time, making betrayal against him even more abhorrent in that context.

Second Interpretation: It means from the root Ighlāl (to cause someone to embezzle), i.e., to be attributed with treachery. Al-Mubarrid said that Arabs say, "Akfartu ar-rajul" (I made the man an unbeliever), meaning I attributed disbelief to him. Al-'Utbī said that if this were the meaning, it should have been phrased like "yu'allalu" (he is made to sin), as they say "yufsiqu" (he is made sinful), "yafujuru" (he is made wicked), and "yukaffiru" (he is made an unbeliever). The preferred view is that it comes from "Aghlalaltuhu," meaning "I found him to be an embezzler," just as one says "Abkhalaytuhu" (I found him miserly) or "Afhamtuhu" (I found him speechless). The author of Al-Kashshāf said that this interpretation of the second recitation approaches the meaning of the first recitation, because the meaning here is that it is not valid to find the Prophet an embezzler, as one cannot find him an embezzler unless he is an embezzler.

We mentioned that Ghulūl means treachery, but in common usage, it has become specific to treachery in spoils of war. However, it has also been mentioned concerning things other than spoils. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Shall I inform you of the greatest ghulūl? Two men between whom there is land or property; if one seizes even the space of a pebble from his companion's land, he will be encircled by it from the seven earths."

Based on this interpretation, the meaning is that the Prophet (PBUH) was absolved from all forms of treachery. How could we not say this when the disbelievers offered him immense wealth to abandon his claim to prophethood? How fitting would it be for one who was entrusted by God with the revelation descending from the seven heavens to betray the people?

Then the Almighty said: {And whoever embezzles, he will come forth with what he embezzled on the Day of Resurrection}. There are two views on this:

First View (Majority of Exegetes): This verse is taken literally. They say it is analogous to His saying concerning the one who withholds Zakāh: {The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and therewith will be branded therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs, [it will be said], 'This is what you hoarded for yourselves; so taste what you used to hoard'} (At-Tawbah: 35). This is supported by the Prophet's saying: "I will not find any of you coming on the Day of Resurrection with a bleating goat, a lowing cow, or a bleating sheep on his neck, crying out, 'O Muḥammad! O Muḥammad!' and I will say, 'I have no power for you against God; I have delivered the message to you.'" Ibn 'Abbās said that the embezzled item will be represented to him in the depths of Hell, and he will be told, "Descend to it and take it." He descends, and when he reaches it, he carries it on his back, and it will not be accepted from him. The scholars stated that the benefit here is that when he comes on the Day of Resurrection with that embezzled item on his neck, his disgrace will increase.

Second View: The literal meaning is not intended, but rather the severity of the warning is emphasized through metaphor and imagery. This is analogous to His saying: {Indeed, if there should be the weight of a mustard seed, Allāh will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as reckoner} (Luqmān: 16). The intent here is not the literal bringing forth, but establishing that nothing, not even the weight of a mustard seed on earth or in the heavens, escapes Allāh's knowledge and preservation. Similarly, here the intent is to intensify the warning. Proponents of this view offer two sub-arguments:

1. Abū Muslim said the intent is that Allāh will preserve this embezzled item for him and punish him for it on the Day of Resurrection because nothing is hidden from Him.
2. Abū al-Qāsim al-Ka'bī said the intent is that he will become famous for this, just as famous as someone carrying that item.

However, this interpretation is plausible, but the established principle in Quranic scholarship is that the wording must be taken literally unless evidence prevents it. Here, there is no barrier to the literal meaning, so it must be affirmed.

Then the Almighty said: {Then every soul will be fully compensated for what it earned}. Two questions arise here:

Question 1: Why was it not said, "Then what he earned will be compensated," to maintain connection with the preceding statement?

Answer: The benefit of mentioning this generality is that the embezzler, upon knowing that there is a place where everyone will be compensated for their deeds—whether good or evil—will know that he cannot escape, despite the magnitude of what he acquired.

Question 2: The Mu'tazilah use this verse to affirm that the servant is the true actor, and to affirm the threat of punishment for the sinners (fussaq).

• Regarding the first point: Because God established recompense for his kasb (earning/acquisition), if his kasb were created by God, then God would be punishing him for what He created within him.
• Regarding the second point: Because God said concerning the intentional killer: {And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell} (An-Nisā’: 93), and this verse affirms that every doer receives their recompense, it is concluded from the combination of the two verses that sinners are certainly threatened with punishment.

Answer: The answer to the first question (about action) is by counter-argument based on knowledge (of God's creation). As for the second question (about the threat), this generality is restricted in the case of repentance. Similarly, it must be restricted in the case of pardon, based on evidence indicating pardon.

Then the Almighty said: {And they will not be wronged}. Al-Qāḍī said this indicates that injustice (ẓulm) is possible in God's actions, meaning by diminishing reward or increasing punishment. He said this is only possible according to our view, not the view of the Jabriyyah who say that whatever God does is justice and wisdom because He is the Owner.

Answer: Negating injustice from Him does not prove its possibility for Him, just as His saying: {Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep} (Al-Baqarah: 255) does not prove that drowsiness or sleep are possible for Him.

{Then is one who follows the pleasure of Allāh like one who has brought upon himself the wrath of Allāh, and whose refuge is Hell? And wretched is the destination!}