Surah An-Nisa (4): Verse 31

Introduction

After mentioning the threat (of punishment), the Almighty followed it by detailing what is related to it, which is this verse. This verse contains several issues:

Some people have said that all sins and transgressions are major sins.

It is narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, that he said: "Every act in which God is disobeyed is a major sin. Whoever commits any of it should seek forgiveness from God, for God will not keep anyone from this Ummah in the Fire except one who reverts from Islam, or denies an obligation, or denies destiny."

This view is weak for several reasons:

1. The Verse Itself: If all sins were major sins, the distinction made in the verse—that avoiding major sins leads to the expiation of lesser sins—would be meaningless.
2. Other Verses: The Almighty says: {And everything, small and great, is recorded} (Al-Qamar: 53), and {He left nothing, small or great, but that He enumerated it} (Al-Kahf: 49).
3. Prophetic Specification: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified certain sins as major sins, such as his saying: "The shameful deeds, those that are apparent and those that are hidden, and do not kill the soul..." This indicates that some sins are not major sins.
4. Categorization of Prohibitions: The Almighty says: {But God has endeared faith to you and has made it pleasing in your hearts, and has made hateful to you disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience} (Al-Hujurat: 7). This clearly shows three categories of prohibitions: disbelief (Kufr), wickedness/immorality (Fusuq), and disobedience (Isyan). There must be a difference between Fusuq and Isyan for the conjunction to be meaningful. This difference is precisely between major sins (which are Fusuq) and minor sins (which are Isyan).

Ibn Abbas's Argument (and its Refutation): Ibn Abbas supported his view with two points:

1. The vastness of God's favors upon the disobedient.
2. The majesty of the One who is disobeyed.

Response:

1. Just as God is the most majestic of beings, He is also the Most Merciful and the Most Generous of the generous. He is self-sufficient, needing neither the obedience of the obedient nor the sins of the sinners. All this suggests the lightness of the sin.
2. Even if all sins are major sins in the sense that they are acts of disobedience, some are greater than others, which necessitates a difference (between them).

Conclusion on Classification: Since sins are established to be of two types—minor and major—those who hold this view are divided into two groups:

1. Those who say the major sin is distinguished from the minor sin in its essence and nature.
2. Those who say this distinction arises not from the essence of the act, but from the state of the doer.

We will explain both views.

Those who hold this view differ significantly. We mention some of their opinions:

1. Ibn Abbas: Every sin mentioned in the Qur'an coupled with a threat of punishment is a major sin (e.g., unlawful killing, slandering chaste women, adultery, usury, consuming orphan's wealth, fleeing the battlefield).
2. Ibn Mas'ud: "Open Surah An-Nisa. Every prohibition mentioned up to thirty-three verses is a major sin, confirmed by: {If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden from} (An-Nisa: 31)."
3. A Group: Every intentional act ('amd) is a major sin.

Refutation of these Opinions:

1. Refuting Ibn Abbas's View: Every sin must carry blame in this world and punishment in the Hereafter. If every sin mentioned with a threat is major, it implies all sins are major, which we have already refuted.
2. Refuting Ibn Mas'ud's View: This is weak because God mentioned many major sins in other Surahs; there is no reason to restrict it only to this Surah.
3. Refuting the Intentional Act View:
   • If 'amd means not being heedless of the act, then everything God forbade is what He forbade, meaning all sins are major, which is refuted.
   • If 'amd means committing the sin while knowing it is a sin, then consider the Jews and Christians who disbelieve in Muhammad (PBUH) without knowing it is a sin (from their perspective), yet it is major disbelief (Kufr Akbar). This refutes the view.

(Al-Ghazali mentioned a lengthy section in his selections from Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din regarding the difference between major and minor sins, belonging to this first category.)

This view holds that the distinction is based on the circumstances of the actor. They argue that every act of obedience merits a reward, and every sin merits a punishment. When a person performs an act of obedience earning a reward, and then commits a sin earning a punishment, the situation between the reward and the punishment, based on rational division, can be one of three outcomes:

1. Equality: The reward equals the punishment. This is rationally possible, but textual evidence proves it does not occur, as God says: {A party in Paradise and a party in the Blaze} (Ash-Shura: 7). If such a person existed, they would belong to neither.
2. Reward Exceeds Punishment: The reward for obedience is greater than the punishment for the sin. In this case, the punishment is nullified by the equivalent reward, leaving a surplus of reward. This sin is the minor sin (Saghira). This nullification is called Takfir (expiation).
3. Punishment Exceeds Reward: The punishment for the sin is greater than the reward for the obedience. In this case, the reward is nullified by the equivalent punishment, leaving a surplus of punishment. This sin is the major sin (Kabira). This nullification is called Ihbāt (frustration/annulment).

This explains the difference between major and minor sins. This is the view of the majority of the Mu'tazila.

Refutation of the Mu'tazila View (Ash'ari Position):

This entire argument is built upon foundations that are false to us (Ahl al-Sunnah):

1. It is based on obedience necessitating reward and sin necessitating punishment. This is false because we have shown elsewhere that an act cannot originate from the servant unless God creates in him the impulse for that act. If this is the case, it is impossible for obedience to necessitate reward or sin to necessitate punishment.
2. Even assuming the premise: We know by rational necessity that seventy years of devotion, glorification, and service to God will yield a reward far greater than the punishment for drinking a single drop of wine. Yet, the Ummah agrees that drinking that drop is a major sin. If they insist that the punishment for that drop exceeds the reward of seventy years of devotion, they invalidate their own foundation, as they rely on rational concepts of good and bad. If they reject the judgment of reason here, they invalidate their claim that reason dictates good and bad, and thus all their rules collapse.
3. God's Preceding Favors: God's favors are numerous and precede the obedience of the servants. These prior favors necessitate the obedience itself. Therefore, performing obedience is merely fulfilling what was already due because of those favors; it should not necessitate anything further in the future. If so, no obedience necessitates reward at all. If no obedience necessitates reward, then the punishment for every sin committed will exceed the reward of its doer, meaning all sins must be major sins, which is also false.
4. It is based on the doctrine of Ihbāt (annulment). We have provided numerous proofs for invalidating Ihbāt in Surah Al-Baqarah.

Therefore, the Mu'tazila's distinction between minor and major sins is false.

The majority held that God did not distinguish the entirety of major sins from minor sins.

Reasoning: If God specified exactly which sins are major, and a person knew that avoiding only those specified major sins would lead to the expiation of all their minor sins, this would encourage them to commit those minor sins freely. Encouraging evil is not befitting of God.

However, if God did not distinguish all major sins from all minor sins, and no sin is known for certain to be minor, and every sin committed carries the possibility of being a major sin, this acts as a deterrent against committing any sin.

Analogy: This is similar to God concealing the Salat al-Wusta (middle prayer) among the five daily prayers, Laylat al-Qadr among the nights of Ramadan, the hour of acceptance on Friday, and the time of death among all times.

The principle is that God should not specify that any sin is minor, nor should He specify that major sins are only these specific ones. If He did, everything else would be known as minor, and the minor sins would become known. However, it is permissible for Him to specify some sins as major.

Hadith Evidence: It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) asked: "What do you count as major sins?" They replied: "God and His Messenger know best." He said: "Associating partners with God, unlawfully killing a soul, disobedience to parents, fleeing the battlefield, sorcery, consuming the orphan's wealth, false testimony, usury, and slandering chaste, heedless women."

• `Abdullah ibn Umar mentioned these and added: Desecrating the sanctity of the Ka'bah, drinking wine.
• Ibn Mas'ud added: Despair of God's mercy, and feeling secure from God's plotting.
• Ibn Abbas mentioned seven, then said: "They are closer to seventy." In another narration, "Closer to seven hundred." (And God knows best.)

Al-Qa'bi used this verse to argue for the certainty of punishment for those who commit major sins. He argued: God clarified the ambiguity regarding the threat by stating that whoever avoids major sins will have their lesser sins expiated. This implies that if they do not avoid them, their sins will not be expiated. If God could forgive major and minor sins without repentance, this statement would be meaningless.

Our (Ash'ari) Responses:

1. The Fallacy of Qasr (Restriction): You are either arguing based on the principle that specifying something implies the negation of the ruling for what is outside the specification (which is false for us, and only a weak, presumptive indication for the Mu'tazila), OR you are arguing that the condition attached by 'Inna' (If) implies non-existence when the condition is absent. This is also weak.
   • Evidence against this: Many verses use 'Inna' where the consequence is not negated if the condition is absent (e.g., {And be grateful to God if it is Him you worship} (Al-Baqarah: 172)—gratitude is due regardless; {If you entrust one another with a trust, let him who is entrusted deliver his trust} (Al-Baqarah: 283)—delivering the trust is obligatory regardless of whether the entrustment occurred). There are numerous similar examples.
   • It is strange that Al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar, whose principles of Usul state that a conditional statement does not imply negation of the consequence when the condition is absent, still favored Al-Qa'bi's argument in Tafsir. This shows how human attachment to a doctrine can lead one astray.

2. Abu Muslim Al-Isfahani's Interpretation: This verse came immediately after prohibitions against marrying forbidden women, oppressing women, taking orphans' wealth, etc. Thus, the meaning is: "If you avoid these major sins we have just forbidden you from, We will expiate what you committed previously by way of them." If this interpretation is possible, the Mu'tazila's interpretation is not necessitated.
   • Al-Qadi's Objection: (1) The phrase {major sins which you are forbidden from} is general and cannot be restricted only to what was mentioned previously. (2) It is far-fetched that avoiding future sins expiates past ones. If they repented for the past, repentance already removed the consequence. If they did not repent, how can avoiding future sins expiate past ones?
   • Response to Al-Qadi: We do not claim certainty that the phrase is restricted to what was mentioned, only that it is possible. If it is possible, the Mu'tazila's specific interpretation is not necessitated. Regarding the second point, your question ("How do you know avoiding future sins expiates past ones?") is an inquiry, not proof of falsehood for this interpretation. This possibility alone invalidates their argument.

3. General Threat: Even if we grant their premise—that if one does not avoid major sins, their minor sins are not expiated—this only means the verse is a general threat regarding expiation. General threats of punishment are common, and our response to other general threats applies here. This verse holds no special characteristic in this regard. Therefore, Al-Qa'bi's claim that God clarified the issue with this verse falls apart.

4. Major Sin as Disbelief: Some sins might be major relative to one context and minor relative to another. The ultimate major sin is disbelief (Kufr). If this is established, why can't the intended meaning of {major sins which you are forbidden from} be Kufr? Disbelief has many types (in God, His Prophets, the Last Day, His laws). The meaning would be: If you avoid disbelief, what is beyond it (i.e., lesser sins) will be forgiven. This interpretation aligns perfectly with the explicit statement: {Indeed, God does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that of whom He wills} (An-Nisa: 48). If this interpretation is possible, or even apparent, their argument collapses entirely.

The Mu'tazila claim that avoiding major sins must result in the forgiveness of minor sins. We maintain that nothing is obligatory upon God; rather, everything He does is grace and bounty. The proofs for this have already been mentioned.

Continuation of the Verse

This part contains two issues:

Al-Mufaddal recited from 'Asim: {He will expiate (yukaffiru) and admit you (wayudkhilukum)} using the third-person masculine singular pronoun (He/His). The rest recited using the first-person plural pronoun (We/Our), as a continuation of the promise.

Nafi' recited {a noble entrance (madkhalan)} with a Fath on the Mīm (i.e., madkhalan). The rest recited it with a Damm (i.e., mudkhalan). They all agreed on mudkhal ṣidqin (entrance of truth) with a Damm.

• With Fath (madkhalan): The intended meaning is the place of entry.
• With Damm (mudkhalan): The intended meaning is the source (the verbal noun), meaning: "and He will admit you with a noble admission (idkhalan karīman)." The admission itself is described as noble, meaning this entry will be accompanied by honor, in contrast to those whom God describes as: {those who will be gathered to Hell on their faces} (Al-Furqan: 34).

Avoiding major sins alone does not necessitate entry into Paradise; good deeds must also be performed. The implied meaning is: "If you fulfill all obligations and avoid all major sins, We will expiate the remaining sins and admit you to Paradise." This is one means that necessitates entry into Paradise.

However, the absence of one cause does not necessitate the absence of the effect, because there is another, primary, powerful cause: The Grace, Bounty, and Mercy of God, as He says: {Say, "In the bounty of God and in His mercy—in that let them rejoice"} (Yunus: 58). (And God knows best.)

Surah An-Nisa (4): Verse 32