Tafsir of Ya seen 36:47

Surah Ya-Sin (36): Verse 47

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمُ أَنفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنُطْعِمُ مَن لَّوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ أَطْعَمَهُ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

(47) And when it is said to them, "Spend from what Allah has provided for you," those who disbelieve say to those who believe, "Shall we feed one whom, if Allah willed, He could have fed? You are not but in clear error."

This verse points to their stinginess regarding everything incumbent upon the accountable person. This includes abandoning reverence for Allah's majesty and compassion for Allah's creation.

1. Abandonment of Reverence: They failed to heed the command, "Fear Allah" (اتَّقُوا).
2. Abandonment of Compassion: They failed to heed the command, "Spend" (أَنفِقُوا).

Subtleties (Lata'if):

1. The Lowest Degree: They were addressed with the lowest degrees of reverence and compassion, yet they failed to fulfill even those. In contrast, the sincere servants (المخلصون) were addressed with the lowest degree and responded with the highest.
   • Regarding Piety (Taqwa): They were commanded to fear what is before them (punishment in the Hereafter) and what is behind them (death or punishment). This is the minimum level of fear. The sincere ones, however, fear Allah's displeasure upon His heart, even if He does not punish them immediately. Fearing punishment is for those distant [from Allah], but the sincere ones avoid disobeying Allah whether they are punished or not.
   • Regarding Compassion (Shafaqah): They were told, "Spend from what [is]..." meaning some of what is in your possession for Allah's sake, yet they did not spend. The sincere ones, however, preferred others over themselves, giving away everything they possessed, even sacrificing their own selves for the benefit of Allah's servants and warding off harm from them.

2. The Benefit Returns to Them: Just as the benefit of reverence returns only to the reverent (since Allah is self-sufficient from their reverence), the benefit of compassion returns only to the compassionate. If the provider does not give sustenance, the recipient will not die before their appointed time, and their sustenance will inevitably reach them. However, the fortunate one is he through whose hand Allah causes sustenance to reach others.

3. The Phrase "From what Allah has provided for you" (مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ): This points to two matters:
   • The stinginess regarding it is extremely ugly, as the greatest miser is one who hoards the wealth of others.
   • It should not prevent you from spending out of fear of poverty, for Allah has already provided for you. If you spend, He will replace it for you, just as He provided for you initially.

Issue 1: The Omission of the Answer

In the verse "And when it is said to them, 'Spend...'" (وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمُ أَنفِقُوا), the response is omitted. Here, however, the response is given, and it includes more than just a refusal. If Allah had only said, "And when it is said to them, 'Spend,' they would say, 'Shall we feed...?'" that would have sufficed.

• The Benefit of Specifying the Speakers: Why did Allah say, "Those who disbelieve said to those who believe" (قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا)?
  • The disbelievers used to claim that feeding others was a praiseworthy attribute and they boasted about it. They intended this statement as a rebuttal to the believers. They would say, "We feed guests," believing their actions were praiseworthy. They implied: "If it weren't for our feeding, the guest's need would not be met. And you claim your Lord provides for whomever He wills—so why do you command us to spend?"
  • Since their goal was to refute the believers, not merely to refuse to feed, Allah described them by saying, "Those who disbelieve said to those who believe," indicating the rebuttal.
  • In the previous verse, "Fear what is before you..." (Yasin: 45), they had no rebuttal, so they turned away, and Allah omitted mentioning their turning away because the fact of their turning away was already known.

Issue 2: The Change in Wording

Why did they change the wording in their response? They were commanded to spend (أَنفِقُوا), so their response should have been, "Shall we spend?" (أَنُنْفِقُ), yet they said, "Shall we feed?" (أَنُطْعِمُ)?

• This highlights the extreme nature of their opposition. When commanded to spend (which includes feeding and other things), they did not offer to spend, nor even the lesser act of feeding, but instead said, "We will not feed."
• This is like someone telling another, "Give Zayd a dinar," and the person replies, "I will not give him a dirham." The direct contradiction would be, "I will not give him a dinar," but the exaggeration in the chosen response is stronger. The same applies here.

Issue 3: The Truthfulness of Their Statement and the Condemnation

Their statement, "If Allah willed, He would have fed him," is factually true. Why is it mentioned in a context of condemnation?

• Because their intent was to deny Allah's power or to argue that commanding spending is invalid given Allah's power—both of which are false.
• Allah clarifies this in "From what Allah has provided for you" (مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ). This indicates His power and validates the command to give. If someone has wealth in another's possession, and also wealth in his own treasury, he has the choice: either give from his treasury or command the one holding the wealth to give. It is not permissible for the one whose wealth is in the treasury to say, "The one whose wealth is in your treasury is greater than what is in my hand, so give from that."
• The phrase "You are not but in clear error" (إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ) indicates their belief that they had silenced the believers with this argument, claiming that commanding spending while acknowledging Allah's power was clearly flawed. In reality, their belief was the flawed one.

Linguistic Discussion:

The particle أَن (أَنُطْعِمُ) is used here for negation, meaning mā (مَا). The origin of إِن (إِنْ) is for conditionality, while the origin of مَا (مَا) is for negation. However, they share some common aspects, leading to them being interchanged:

• Shared Aspect: Both are composite particles made of two closely related letters (the hamza is close to alif, and mīm is close to nūn). The meaning they enter must be something that is not currently established. This is obvious for مَا (negation). For إِنْ (conditionality), when you say, "If Zayd comes, I will honor him," it implies Zayd has not yet come. Thus, إِنْ was used in place of مَا.
• Conversely, إِنْ is used for negation (e.g., إِنْ زَيْدٌ قَائِمٌ meaning "Zayd is not standing"), and مَا is used for conditionality (e.g., مَا تَصْنَعْ أَصْنَعْ - "Whatever you do, I will do").
• Evidence for Interchangeability: The negative مَا can be used where إِنْ cannot (e.g., مَا إِنْ جَلَسَ زَيْدٌ—where إِنْ is added as an emphasis particle, ṣilah). Conversely, when إِنْ is the primary particle for conditionality, مَا can be the ṣilah (إِمَّا تَرَيْنَّ). This shows that إِنْ is primary in conditionality and مَا is secondary, while in negation, مَا is primary and إِنْ is secondary.

Second Discussion:

As previously mentioned, the structure "You are not but..." (إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا) implies restriction (Ḥaṣr), meaning they are only in clear error and nothing else.

Third Discussion:

The description of the error as "clear" (مُّبِينٍ) means its error is so manifest that it explains itself; it is an error that is obvious to everyone.

Fourth Discussion:

The preposition "in" (فِي) in "in error" (فِي ضَلَالٍ) suggests they are submerged or immersed in it. This contrasts with phrases like "upon clear proof" (عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ) or "upon guidance" (عَلَى هُدًى), which suggest they are riding upon the straight path and capable of it.

Contextual (Ma'nawiyyah) Discussion:

They described the believers as being in "clear error" because they assumed the believers' statement was contradictory. One whose speech is contradictory is in the utmost error.

• The Contradiction They Perceived: They said, "Shall we feed one whom, if Allah willed, He could have fed?" They meant: If Allah willed to feed them, He would have fed them, so our feeding them would be achieving the already achieved. If Allah did not will to feed them, no one can feed them because what Allah did not will cannot occur, so we have no power to feed them. Thus, why do you command us to feed?
• Another Aspect: They believed Allah intended for those people to be hungry. If they fed them, it would be an attempt to nullify Allah's action, which is impermissible. Therefore, commanding them to feed is error.
• The True Error: The error lies only with them because they focused on the Divine Will (al-Murād) and ignored the Divine Command (al-Ṭalab). When a master commands a servant to do something, the servant should not investigate the reason or the underlying purpose for the command.
  • Example: If a king intends to ride out to attack an enemy secretly and tells his servant, "Prepare the mount," if the servant investigates the purpose of the ride, he would be accused of trying to alert the enemy and reveal the secret. Etiquette in obedience is following the command, not pursuing the underlying purpose.
• Similarly, when Allah says, "Spend from what He has provided for you," it is not permissible for them to ask, "Why did Allah not feed them from His treasury?"

وَيَقُولُونَ مَتَىٰ هَٰذَا الْوَعْدُ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

(48) And they say, "When is this promise, if you should be truthful?"