Surah Adh-Dhariyat: (57) I have not desired from them any provision...

This verse serves as a response to an implied question: If creation implies a purpose, and that purpose often involves benefit to the creator, why does God deny desiring benefit from humanity?

The answer is that God is not like earthly masters seeking benefit from their slaves. Earthly masters seek benefit from their slaves in two ways:

1. Acquiring wealth (Rizq) for the master.
2. Service (Khadamah): If the slave is for service, the master avoids hiring others (which costs money) by having the slave perform the necessary tasks. Thus, service ultimately saves the master money, which is a form of acquisition.

Therefore, God states: {I have not desired from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should feed Me.} This means: I am not like masters who seek worship for their own gain; rather, the benefit of their worship accrues to the worshippers themselves.

Another view is that this verse confirms that humans were created for worship. In common practice, an action requires a benefit for the actor. Slaves, however, fall into two categories:

1. Slaves for Majesty and Honor: Like the retinue of kings. The king feeds, clothes, and grants them lands and treasures, yet the purpose is their mere presence, standing before him, and showing deference (e.g., placing the right hand over the left).
2. Slaves for Utility: Those acquired to help generate income or manage affairs.

God states that He created them, implying a purpose/benefit must exist. Humans should reflect: Are they the type from whom provision is sought? No. {I have not desired from them any provision.} Are they the type from whom the act of providing sustenance (like a cook or server bringing food) is sought? No. {Nor do I desire that they should feed Me.}

Therefore, they must be slaves of the first category—those whose purpose is glorification and reverence—and they should not neglect this form of service.

Subtleties Mentioned in Several Issues:

Why repeat the denial? A master might seek two types of benefit:

1. Seeking wealth acquisition from the slave (seeking Rizq).
2. Even if the master is wealthy and needs no acquisition, he might still require the slave to manage his existing wealth or bring food prepared from the master's own resources.

God denies both: "I seek neither acquisition from you, nor do I seek the act of serving Me food from your resources."

This follows the principle of ascending order (or rhetorical elevation). It is like saying, "I do not seek help from you, nor from someone stronger than you," or "Princes honor him, even kings do not."

Here, God says: "I do not seek provision from you, nor do I seek something lesser than that—the act of presenting food before Me." Presenting food is a very common request from servants, even if acquisition is not sought.

No, because of the distinction between the goal and the act:

• Seeking Rizq (Provision) implies seeking the result (wealth/sufficiency), not necessarily the specific action. A slave tasked with earning wealth might be excused if he engages in other work that yields a satisfactory result for the master.
• Seeking Feeding (It'am) implies seeking the specific action itself. If a hungry master sends a slave to fetch food, and the slave gets delayed by handling money (the means to the end), the master might be displeased, as the act of bringing the food was desired.

Thus, Rizq is mentioned using a term related to the goal (wealth), and It'am is mentioned using a term related to the act (the action itself). This variation also adds eloquence and strength to the expression.

Since the first denial, {from any provision}, is general and covers all forms of material benefit, it implies the highest level of denial. Mentioning "feeding" specifically points toward the lowest level of required action—the physical service related to sustenance.

By negating the lowest form of service (preparing or presenting food), it necessarily negates the higher forms of service by way of a fortiori (the principle of the greater implying the lesser). It is as if God said: "I desire neither their essence (wealth) nor their action."

A master might buy a slave not for work, provision, or glorification, but purely for trade and profit.

The generality of {from any provision} covers this, as trading in a slave is fundamentally seeking provision (profit) from that slave.

In Arabic, Mā (ما) typically negates the present tense/moment, while Lā (لا) negates the future or general state. Since God desires neither provision now nor in the future, why not use Lā?

• If someone is currently praying and an observer says, "He is not praying" (Lā yuṣallī), the observer would be proven false if the person is indeed praying. If the observer waits until the person stops praying and then says, "He is not praying" (Lā yuṣallī), the statement is true.
• If the observer says, "He is not praying" (Mā yuṣallī) while the person is praying, the statement is false. If the observer waits until the person stops praying and says Mā yuṣallī, the statement is also false (as Mā implies negation of the immediate action).

Since the context of worldly affairs (Dunya) is immediate and present, using {Mā urīdu} (I do not desire) effectively negates the desire in this current, existing state (the lifetime of the world). Since a deceased person cannot be asked for provision or action, the use of Mā (negating the present state) encompasses the general and perpetual negation. If God had used Lā urīdu, it might have been interpreted as negating only the future, which is less comprehensive in this context.

{Indeed, it is Allah Who is the Provider, the Possessor of Strength, the Firm.}