Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:29-30

Al-Nisa (The Women): Verses 29–30

Structure and Context:

There are two main ways to understand the connection (Nathm) here:

1. After explaining the manner of dealing with individuals through marriage, the Almighty then addresses the manner of dealing with wealth.
2. The Judge (Al-Qadi) stated that since the command to seek marriage involved wealth (ordering the payment of dowries and maintenance), the subsequent verse explains how wealth should be managed: "O you who have believed, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly..."

Issue 1: Why is "Consumption" (Eating) singled out?

Although all wrongful transactions are forbidden, consumption is mentioned specifically because it is the primary purpose of wealth. This is similar to the verse: "Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly..." (4:10).

Issue 2: The Meaning of "Unjustly" (بالباطل - bil-bāṭil)

There are two interpretations:

1. It means everything unlawful in Sharia: This includes usury (Riba), usurpation, theft, treachery, false testimony, acquiring wealth through false oaths, and denying rights.
   • Critique: If interpreted this way, the verse becomes general (mujmal), as it essentially means: "Do not consume your wealth among yourselves through illegitimate means." Since the legitimate means are not detailed here, the verse remains general.
2. It means anything taken without compensation: This is narrated from Ibn Abbas and Al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with them).
   • Critique: If this is the meaning, the verse is not general. However, some argued it is abrogated (mansūkh). They claim that when this verse was revealed, people became hesitant to eat at anyone's house, which was difficult. Allah abrogated this by saying in Surah An-Nur: "There is no blame upon the blind or the lame or the sick for eating in your houses..." (24:61).
   • Rebuttal: This is not abrogation, but rather specification (takhṣīṣ). Al-Sha'bi narrated from Alqamah from Ibn Mas'ud that this verse is established (muḥkama) and will not be abrogated until the Day of Resurrection.

Issue 3: Scope of the Prohibition

The phrase "Do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly" includes:

1. Consuming the wealth of others unjustly.
2. Consuming one's own wealth unjustly.

This is because the term "your wealth" (amwālakum) encompasses both categories, similar to the verse "And do not kill yourselves" (4:29), which prohibits killing others as well as killing oneself unjustly. Consuming one's own wealth unjustly means spending it on sins. Consuming others' wealth unjustly is what we previously enumerated.

Issue 1: Grammatical Reading of Tijārah

• Nasb (Accusative): Read by 'Asim, Hamzah, and Al-Kisā'ī. This treats kāna as incomplete (nāqiṣah), implying: "Except if the trade is a trade..." (omitting the predicate).
• Raf' (Nominative): Read by the rest. This treats kāna as complete (tāmma), implying: "Except if a trade resulting from mutual consent exists or occurs."
  • Al-Wāḥidī preferred the nominative reading because the accusative reading requires presupposing the noun (taqdīr al-ism) before it is mentioned, which is weak, though permissible.

Issue 2: The Nature of the Exception (Illā)

1. Disjointed Exception (Istithnā' Munqaṭiʿ): Trade based on consent is not of the same genus as unjust consumption. Thus, illā here means bal (rather/but). The meaning is: Everything permissible to consume is lawful through trade based on mutual consent.
2. Connected Exception (Istithnā' Muṭṭaṣil): Some scholars suggested an implied term. The meaning would be: "Do not consume your wealth unjustly, even if you consent (like in usury, etc.), except if it is a trade based on mutual consent."

Note: Just as wealth acquired through trade is lawful, so too is wealth acquired through gifts, bequests, inheritance, receiving charity, dowries, and blood money (arūsh al-janāyāt), as there are many means of ownership besides trade.

• If we adopt the disjointed exception, there is no issue, as the verse mentions only one means of ownership (trade) without negating or affirming others.
• If we adopt the connected exception, it implies that means other than trade do not confer lawfulness. This necessitates either abrogation or specification.

Issue 3: The Legal Implication of the Prohibition (Bāṭil)

• Al-Shāfi'ī: A prohibition in transactions implies invalidity (buṭlān).
• Abū Ḥanīfah: It does not imply invalidity.

Al-Shāfi'ī argued for his position with several points:

1. All wealth belongs to Allah. When He authorizes some actions for His servants (like an agent), if the agent acts against the principal's command, the transaction is void by consensus. If an action contrary to the command of the authorized agent is void, then an action contrary to the command of the True Owner is even more so.
2. These invalid transactions either necessarily result in the forbidden entering existence, or they do not. If the former, they must be void (by analogy with other void transactions, aiming to prevent the source of the prohibition from arising). If the latter, they should be valid (by analogy with sound transactions, as they lack a corrupting element). A transaction that is neither valid nor void is impossible.
3. The prohibition "Do not sell a dirham for two dirhams" is like "Do not sell a free person for a slave." Just as the latter is a legislative prohibition, so is the former. If it were legislative, it would be abrogating a previous ruling, meaning it wouldn't convey the ruling itself (this point seems to argue against the implication of invalidity based on the nature of legislative commands).

Issue 4: The Option of the Assembly (Khiyār al-Majlis)

• Abū Ḥanīfah: Denies the option of the assembly in pure exchange contracts.
• Al-Shāfi'ī: Affirms it.

Abū Ḥanīfah supported his view with several texts:

1. This verse: "...Except for trade resulting from mutual consent among you" implies lawfulness upon consent, whether separation occurs or not.
2. "Fulfill [all] contracts" (5:1), obligating each contracting party to fulfill what they agreed upon.
3. The Prophet's saying: "The property of a Muslim is not lawful except by his willing consent," and consent has been achieved here through the sale contract, so lawfulness must follow.
4. The saying: "Whoever buys food, let him not sell it until he has taken possession of it," which permits selling after possession, implying the sale is valid upon possession, not separation.
5. The prohibition against selling food until the measures (ṣī'ān) have been used in it, and permission after they have been used, without stipulating separation.
6. The saying: "The child does not inherit from his father except if he finds him a slave and buys him, then frees him." Consensus holds that emancipation occurs immediately upon purchase, indicating ownership is established by the contract alone.

• Al-Shāfi'ī's Response: Al-Shāfi'ī accepts the generality of these texts but argues that they established the option of inspection (khiyār al-ru'yah) based on a weak hadith. Therefore, he establishes the option of the assembly based on a hadith agreed upon by hadith scholars: "The two contracting parties have the option [to retract] as long as they have not separated." (The refutations and responses of Abū Ḥanīfah's followers are detailed in Al-Khilāfiyyāt.)

It is agreed that this prohibits some from killing others. The term "yourselves" is used because the Prophet (PBUH) said, "The believers are like a single soul," and Arabs say, "By the Lord of the Ka'bah, we have been killed," when some of them are slain, as killing some is treated like killing them all.

Did this address self-killing?

• Some denied this, arguing that a believer, due to his faith, is naturally prevented from self-killing by severe pain, great shame in this world, and severe punishment in the Hereafter. If the deterrents are absolute, the prohibition is pointless.
• This prohibition might apply to those who believe in self-killing as the Hindus do, which is not the case for a believer.
• Rebuttal: A believer, despite his faith, may experience grief and distress so severe that killing himself seems easier. We see many Muslims doing this for such reasons, so the prohibition has a purpose.
• Alternative Interpretation: It means: "Do not do acts that warrant your own killing," such as murder, apostasy, or adultery after marriage.
• Mercy Aspect: Allah then states He is Merciful to His servants, forbidding them everything that brings hardship or affliction. It is also said that Allah commanded the Children of Israel to kill themselves as repentance and purification, but He was merciful to the Ummah of Muhammad by not imposing such a difficult command.

Issue 1: Reference of the Pronoun "That" (Dhālik)

1. Specific: 'Aṭā' said it refers specifically to the unlawful killing of a soul, as the pronoun should refer to the nearest mentioned item.
2. Combined: Al-Zajjāj said it refers to both killing the soul and consuming wealth unjustly, as they are mentioned in one verse.
3. General: Ibn Abbas said it refers to everything forbidden from the beginning of the Sūrah up to this point.

Issue 2: The Condition of "Transgression and Injustice" (ʿudwānan wa ẓulman)

This condition is added because among the preceding prohibitions (killing and taking wealth), some acts might be lawful (e.g., retribution/Qisas for killing, or compensation/Diyya for injury). Thus, the threat of the Fire is specified for acts done unjustly and transgressively.

Issue 3: The Mu'tazila Position

The Mu'tazila argue this verse proves the definite punishment of sinners (ahl al-ṣalāh). They claim that while "We will drive him into a Fire" doesn't explicitly state eternal residence, anyone who affirms definite punishment for sinners also affirms their eternity, as no one distinguishes between the two.

• The Response: This has been addressed previously. Here, we state that this applies specifically to disbelievers. The verse says, "And whoever does that in transgression and injustice." The difference between ʿudwān (transgression) and ẓulm (injustice) must be maintained to avoid repetition. Therefore, ẓulm is interpreted as intending defiance against Allah's commands, which implies disbelief.
• Counter-argument: Doesn't the verse start by addressing believers ("O you who have believed")? How can the intended meaning be disbelievers?
• Our Reply: According to your doctrine (Mu'tazila), whoever falls under this threat is definitively not a believer. Therefore, you must hold that they were believers, but by committing these acts, they ceased to be described as such. If this logic is necessary for you, why can it not be used by us to support our position? (Allah knows best.)

All possible things are equal in relation to Allah's power. Therefore, it is impossible to say some actions are easier for Him than others. This phrasing is either:

1. A statement conforming to common human understanding (like the verse: "And that is easier for Him" [30:27]).
2. An exaggeration intended to maximize the threat, meaning no one can escape or resist Him.