Al-Nisa (4): 53 - Am lahum naṣīb...

Know that the Almighty described the Jews in the preceding verse with extreme ignorance, which was their belief that idol worship was superior to the worship of God Almighty. In this verse, He describes them with stinginess (bukhul) and envy (ḥasad).

Stinginess is refusing to give anything to anyone from the blessings God has bestowed. Envy is wishing that God would not grant any blessings to others. Both stinginess and envy share the characteristic that their possessor desires to withhold blessings from others. The stingy person withholds his own blessings from others, while the envious person wishes to withhold God's blessings from others.

The reason the previous verse (describing ignorance) was presented before this verse (describing stinginess and envy) is twofold:

1. The human soul has two powers: the cognitive power and the active power. Perfection of the cognitive power is knowledge, and its deficiency is ignorance. Perfection of the active power is good morals, and its deficiency is blameworthy morals. The most deficient of blameworthy morals are stinginess and envy because they are the source of harm returning to God's servants.
2. The cognitive faculty precedes the active faculty in honor and rank, and it is the foundation for it. Therefore, explaining its condition must precede explaining the condition of the active faculty.
3. Ignorance is the cause of stinginess and envy. The cause precedes the effect. Thus, the Almighty mentioned ignorance before mentioning stinginess and envy.

We state that ignorance is the cause of stinginess and envy:

• Regarding Stinginess: Spending wealth is a means to purify the soul and attain happiness in the Hereafter. Hoarding wealth results in possessing worldly wealth in one's hand. Stinginess calls you to the world and prevents you from the Hereafter, while generosity calls you to the Hereafter and prevents you from the world. Preferring the world over the Hereafter can only stem from sheer ignorance.
• Regarding Envy: Divinity (al-ilāhiyyah) means conveying blessings and benevolence to the servants. Whoever dislikes this is as if he wishes to depose the Deity from divinity, which is pure ignorance.

Thus, it is established that the original cause of stinginess and envy is ignorance. When the Almighty mentioned ignorance, He followed it up by mentioning stinginess and envy so that the effect would be mentioned immediately after the cause. This is the indication of the structure (naẓm) of this verse.

Herein lie several issues:

There are several interpretations regarding the particle Am here:

1. Some say the Mīm (م) is an extra particle (ṣilah), meaning the phrase is equivalent to Alahum (ألهم), because when Am is not preceded by an interrogative particle, the Mīm is considered an extra particle.
2. Am here is connected (mutaṣilah), implying a preceding question in meaning. Since the Almighty recounted the accursed ones (Jews) saying that the polytheists were better guided than the believers, He connects this by saying: {Or do they have a share...}. It is as if the Almighty is asking: Are you amazed by that, or by their saying they have a share in sovereignty, when if they truly possessed sovereignty, they would be stingy even with the least thing?
3. Am here is disjunctive (munqaṭiʿah) and completely unconnected to what preceded it. It is as if, when the first statement concluded, He said: Rather, do they have a share in sovereignty? This interrogation carries the meaning of denial, meaning they have absolutely no share in sovereignty. This third view is the soundest.

Several views are mentioned regarding this sovereignty:

1. The Jews used to claim that sovereignty and prophethood belonged to them, so why should they follow the Arabs? God refuted their claim in this verse.
2. The Jews used to claim that sovereignty would return to them at the end of time, asserting that someone would emerge from among them to renew their kingdom and state and call to their religion. God refuted them in this verse.
3. The intended meaning of sovereignty here is bestowal/ownership (al-tamlīk). That is, they are only able to reject your prophethood if the power of bestowal were in their hands. If the power of bestowal were theirs, they would be stingy with the smallest thing (naqīr or qiṭmīr), so how can they possess the power of affirmation and negation (regarding prophethood)? Abu Bakr al-Aṣamm said: They were owners of gardens and wealth, enjoying honor and might, yet they were stingy with the poorest people over the smallest thing, so this verse was revealed.

The Almighty made their stinginess a barrier to their obtaining sovereignty. This indicates that sovereignty and stinginess do not coexist.

The rational analysis is that submission to another is inherently disliked. A person only endures what is disliked if he finds a desirable and sought-after benefit in return. People are surrounded by needs. If a person shows kindness (generosity) to another, the desire of the recipient for that wealth becomes a reason for him to become submissive and obedient to the benefactor. This is why it is said: "Kindness enslaves the free man." If this is absent, the natural aversion to submitting to another remains pure, without any counteracting factor, and submission will never occur. Thus, it is established that sovereignty and stinginess do not combine.

Sovereignty is of three types:

1. Sovereignty over external matters only—this is the sovereignty of kings.
2. Sovereignty over internal matters only—this is the sovereignty of scholars.
3. Sovereignty over both external and internal matters—this is the sovereignty of the Prophets (peace and blessings be upon them).

Since generosity is a necessary attribute of sovereignty, the Prophets (peace be upon them) must possess the utmost generosity, kindness, mercy, and compassion, so that each of these characteristics becomes a reason for people's submission to them and their compliance with their commands. The perfection of these attributes is found in Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

Sibawayh stated that the particle Idhan in verbal constructions is like Aẓunnu (I think) in nominal constructions. The explanation is:

• If Aẓunnu occurs at the beginning of a sentence, it mandates the accusative case (e.g., Aẓunnu Zaydan qā’iman).
• If it occurs in the middle, both cancellation (ilghā’) and operation (iʿmāl) are permissible (e.g., Zaydun aẓunnu qā’imun or Zaydan aẓunnu qā’imun).
• If it comes last, cancellation is preferred (e.g., Zaydun munṭaliqun ẓanantu).

The reason for this is that Ẓanna and similar verbs (like ʿalima and ḥasiba) are weak in operation because they do not strongly affect their objects. If they are placed first, their precedence in mention indicates strong attention, strengthening their effect. If they are delayed, it indicates a lack of attention, causing them to lapse. If they are in the middle, they are neither fully attended to nor fully neglected, occupying an intermediate position, hence both operation and cancellation are permissible.

Know that operation is better when the verb is in the middle, and cancellation is better when it is delayed.

Applying this to Idhan: If it precedes, it mandates the subjunctive mood for the verb (e.g., Idhan ukrimuka). If it is in the middle or delayed, cancellation is permissible (e.g., Anā idhan ukrimuka, or Anā ukrimuka idhan—canceling its effect).

Given this premise, regarding the Almighty's saying: {Then they will not give people even a naqīr}, the word Idhan is present but has not operated (i.e., the following verb is not in the subjunctive). Scholars offer justifications for this:

1. There is a transposition (taqdīm wa ta’khīr) in the sentence. The intended order is: {They will not give people a naqīr then} (lā yu’tūna an-nāsa naqīran idhan).
2. Because it occurs between the Fā’ (ف) and the verb, it is permissible to treat it as intermediate, allowing for cancellation, just as it is canceled when intermediate or delayed. This is also the case with the conjunction Wāw (و), as in the verse: {And when they do not remain behind you except a little while} (wa idhā lā yalbathūna khilāfaka).
3. Ibn Masʿūd recited it as: {Fa-idhā lā yu’tū} (with the subjunctive verb), operating Idhan according to its function of mandating the subjunctive.

Linguists state that al-Naqīr is a small pit on the back of a date seed from which the palm tree sprouts. Its origin is from the verbal noun of naqr (pecking/tapping). It is also said of wood that is pecked into, it is called naqīr because it is pecked. Naqr is striking stone or other things with a minqār (a tool like an axe used for cutting stones). The purpose is to show that they are stingy even over the smallest thing.

{ 4. Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them of His bounty? But We have already given the family of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and We have given them a great dominion. *So, of them are those who believed in him, and of them are those who turned away from him. And sufficient is Hellfire as a blaze.}

(4:54-55)