ﱶ ﱷ ﱸ ﱹ ﱺ ﱻ ﱼ ﱽ ﱾ ﱿ ﲀ ﲁ ﲂ ﲃ ﲄ ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ
And [there are] others who have acknowledged their sins. They had mixed a righteous deed with another that was bad. Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Tafsir
Verse range: 9:102-103
And others have confessed their sins...
There are two main opinions:
It is narrated that they were three men: Abu Lubabah ibn Abd al-Mundhir, Aws ibn Tha'labah, and Wadi'ah ibn Huzam. Another account says they were ten. Seven of them tied themselves to the pillars of the Mosque when they heard what was revealed concerning those who stayed behind, certain of their doom. They tied themselves to the pillars of the Mosque.
When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) returned from his journey and entered the Mosque, he prayed two rak'ahs, as was his custom. When he saw them tied, he asked about them. He was told they swore not to untie themselves until the Messenger of Allah untied them himself. The Prophet (PBUH) said, "And I swear I will not untie them until I am commanded concerning them." Then this verse was revealed, and he released them and excused them.
They said, "O Messenger of Allah, these are our possessions, and we stayed behind because of them. Take them as charity to purify us." He replied, "I have not been commanded to take anything from your possessions." Then the verse: {Take from their wealth a charity...} was revealed.
Linguistically, confession (الاعتراف) means acknowledging something with knowledge. It means they admitted their sin. There is a subtlety here: it is as if it is said that they did not offer false excuses for their absence like others, but rather they admitted their wrongdoing, showed remorse, and blamed themselves for that dereliction.
If it is asked: Is the mere confession of sin considered repentance (توبة)?
The answer: Mere confession of sin is not repentance. However, if it is accompanied by regret for the past and a firm intention to abandon it in the future, and this regret and repentance are because the act was forbidden by God Almighty, then this combination constitutes repentance. The evidence shows that these individuals did repent, as indicated by the Almighty's statement: {Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness} (عسى الله أن يتوب عليهم). The commentators state that when God uses ‘asā (عسى), it implies obligation.
One might ask: Since both the righteous deed and the evil deed are described as "mixed," what are they mixed with?
The answer is that mixing (الخلط) here means absolute combination (الجمع المطلق). The term khalaṭtu (I mixed) is usually appropriate where one substance blends into another, changing its original nature, like mixing water with milk.
What is appropriate here is absolute combination, because when the righteous deed and the evil deed occur, each remains in its original state according to our doctrine (the Ash'ari view). We hold that the nullification of deeds (الإحباط) is false. Obedience remains deserving of praise and reward, and disobedience remains deserving of blame and punishment.
Therefore, the Almighty’s statement {They mixed a righteous deed with another that was evil} serves as a reminder to negate the doctrine of nullification (المحابطة), confirming that each deed remained as it was, without one affecting the other. What supports the negation of nullification is that God described the deeds as mixed (مخالطة). Things that are mixed must necessarily remain present during their mixing, because mixing is an attribute of the mixed things. The existence of an attribute while the subject is absent is impossible. This proves the persistence of both deeds during the mixing.
A question arises: The word ‘asā implies doubt, which is impossible for God. The answer is multifaceted:
Our scholars state that {Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness} explicitly indicates that repentance is only achieved through God's creation. Reason also supports this, as the basis of repentance is regret (الندم), and regret does not occur by the servant's choice. If the will to act or refrain were the servant's act, it would require another will to enact it. Furthermore, a person might intensely desire an action, then become intensely regretful of it, yet while desiring it, he cannot expel that desire from his heart, and while regretful, he cannot expel that regret. This proves the servant has no power to attain regret or desire.
The Mu'tazilah argue that God's statement "He will turn to them" means "He will accept their repentance."
The Refutation: Diverting from the literal meaning is only appropriate if evidence proves the literal meaning cannot be applied. Here, rational evidence dictates that the literal meaning must be applied, so how can interpretation be justified?
The phrase {Perhaps Allah will turn to them in forgiveness} implies that this repentance will occur in the future. However, {And others have confessed their sins} indicates that this confession occurred in the past. This shows that the confession was not the repentance itself, but a prerequisite for repentance, which would only occur afterward.
People differed on the intended meaning:
Arguments for the First View (Expiation): The verses must be coherent. If we interpret it as obligatory Zakat from the outset, this verse loses connection to what precedes and follows it, becoming an extraneous phrase, which is unsuitable for God's speech.
Arguments for the Third View (Obligatory Zakat): Coherence is maintained here too. Since they expressed repentance and remorse for staying behind—which was caused by their love of wealth and eagerness to withhold it from spending—it is as if they were told: "The truth of your claim of repentance and remorse will only be shown if you pay the obligatory Zakat without reluctance." If they pay it willingly, their sincerity in repentance is proven; otherwise, they are liars. However, interpreting this verse as commanding the payment of obligatory Zakat while maintaining the coherence of the verses is preferable.
What supports the interpretation of obligatory Zakat is the phrase {to purify them and to make them grow thereby}. This means purifying them from sin because of taking that charity. This only makes sense if, had the charity not been taken, the sin would have remained—which applies to obligatory charity.
Regarding the First View's Counter-Argument: They cite the narration that when the Prophet (PBUH) excused and released the repentant men, they said, "O Messenger of Allah, this is our wealth because of which we stayed behind; take it as charity on our behalf and purify us." The Prophet (PBUH) replied, "I have not been commanded to take anything from your wealth." Then God revealed this verse, and the Prophet (PBUH) took one-third of their wealth, leaving two-thirds, because God said {Take from their wealth a charity} (خذ من أموالهم صدقة), not "Take their wealth." The particle min (من) implies partiality. This narration does not contradict our chosen view; it implies: "Since you agreed to give non-obligatory charity, it is more fitting that you agree to give the obligatory ones."
Ruling 1: Amount and Specification {Take from their wealth} indicates that the amount taken is a part of the wealth, not all of it. The specific amount is not explicitly stated here; only the word {a charity} (صدقة) is mentioned. This cannot mean any amount, even a single grain or a negligible part of gold. Therefore, it must refer to a charity known in its description, manner, and quantity to them, making the command to take that known charity clear. This known charity is what the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) described (e.g., taking a bint makhad from 25 camels, a bint labun from 36, etc.). Thus, {Take from their wealth a charity} is a command to take those specific items. The apparent meaning implies obligation, proving that taking it is obligatory. This also proves that monetary value is not sufficient compensation (contrary to the view of Imam Shafi'i).
Ruling 2: Ownership and Liability {from their wealth a charity} requires the wealth to belong to them. Consequently, the poor person is not a partner in the nisab (threshold amount). Therefore, Zakat liability rests upon the person's obligation (الذمة) and is not tied absolutely to the nisab itself. If a person is negligent and the nisab perishes, what perished was not the locus of the right; the locus of the right remains. Thus, the obligation must remain even after the nisab perishes (the view of Imam Shafi'i).
Ruling 3: Debtors and Guarantors The apparent generality of the verse implies Zakat is due on the wealth of a debtor and the wealth guaranteed by someone. This is apparent.
Ruling 4: Purification from Sins and Age of Obligation The apparent meaning suggests Zakat is obligatory as purification from sins. Therefore, it should only be obligatory where purification from sins is possible, which is only conceivable for an adult. Thus, Zakat obligation should only apply to adults (the view of Imam Abu Hanifah).
Imam Shafi'i responds: The verse indicates taking charity from their wealth, and taking charity implies purification. Why then do you claim that taking Zakat from the wealth of a child or an insane person is purification, when the absence of a specific cause does not necessitate the absence of the ruling absolutely?
The author of Al-Kashshāf mentioned that it was recited as {and purify them} (وتطهرهم) in the jussive mood, as the direct result (answer) to the command. However, {to purify them and to make them grow} (تطهرهم وتزكيهم) was only read with the yā’ (implying future tense/present tense).
Hamzah, Al-Kisā’ī, and Ḥafṣ (from ‘Āṣim) recited {your prayer} (أن صلواتك) without the wāw and with a singular tā’, referring to the genus of prayer. The rest recited it with the plural ṣalawātuka.
Abu ‘Ubaydah preferred the singular reading, arguing that ṣalāt (singular) is more common, citing the verse {and that you establish prayer} (وأن أقيموا). Al-Ḥātim disagreed, arguing that the plural form (صلوات) is not exclusively for the few, citing {God's words will never be exhausted} (Luqmān: 27).
Those who refused to pay Zakat during Abu Bakr’s time used this verse as proof. They argued that God commanded His Messenger to take charity, then commanded him to pray for them, stating that his prayer was tranquility for them. Thus, the obligation of Zakat was conditional upon achieving that tranquility, which only the Messenger (PBUH) could provide. Therefore, Zakat should not be paid to anyone other than the Messenger (PBUH).
This argument is weak because other verses prove that Zakat was obligated to meet the needs of the poor, as in {The charities are only for the poor} (9:60) and {And in their wealth is a right for the beggar and the deprived} (51:19).
In its linguistic root, ṣalāh means supplication (الدعاء). If one says, "So-and-so prayed for so-and-so," it means supplication. However, by convention, it means, "O God, send blessings upon him." This led to differences among commentators:
Some deny that prayer (blessings) should be directed to anyone other than the Prophet (PBUH).
Our scholars prohibit mentioning blessings upon anyone other than the Messenger (PBUH). The Shi'a mention it for ‘Alī and his descendants. They argue that the Qur'an permits this mention for those who pay Zakat, so why forbid it for ‘Alī, Al-Ḥasan, and Al-Ḥusayn? They also argue that if one says, "Peace be upon you," the response is, "And upon you be peace," indicating the permissibility of using this phrase for the general Muslim populace.
Al-Qāḍī stated that it is permissible for the Prophet (PBUH) because when they asked him how to send blessings upon him after learning how to send peace, he taught them: (O God, send blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You sent blessings upon Ibrāhīm and the family of Ibrāhīm). Since there is no prophet among the family of Muhammad, this includes ‘Alī, just as it applies to the family of Ibrāhīm.
(The author notes this section is tangential but includes it to preserve the insight.)
When one says "Salāmun ‘alaykum" (سلام عليكم), Salām (peace) is indefinite and serves as the subject. Some grammarians deny an indefinite subject unless it is qualified.
When responding, the order is reversed: "Wa ‘alaykum as-salām" (وعليكم السلام). This is because the respondent prioritizes what concerns him most. Furthermore, the response implies exclusivity: "If you sent peace to me, I return it to you, adding to it and restricting it to you," fulfilling the command: {When you are greeted with a greeting, greet [in return] with one better than it or return it} (4:86).
Superiority of Indefinite vs. Definite: "Salāmun ‘alayka" (indefinite) is superior to "As-salāmu ‘alayka" (definite). The definite form refers only to the essence of peace, lacking indication of its qualities or perfections. The indefinite form implies a complete, perfect, noble peace. This is supported by the Qur'an: God often uses the indefinite form when sending peace (e.g., 6:54), while prophets often use the definite form (e.g., Moses: 20:47). God’s statement regarding John: {And peace be upon him the day he was born and the day he dies} (19:15) is from God. Jesus said: {And peace be upon me the day I was born and the day I die} (19:33). Thus, "Salāmun ‘alayka" is superior, which is why Imam Shafi'i preferred the indefinite form in the Tashahhud.
The Essence of Peace: This world is a source of evils, afflictions, and tribulations. Scholars debate whether the fundamental nature of animals is good or evil. The consensus among humans (and animals) is that the fundamental nature is evil. Evidence: If a stranger approaches, one instinctively prepares a defense, indicating a natural assumption of potential harm. If the origin were good, one would approach. If good and evil were balanced, flight and standing still would be equal. Since flight is the default reaction to an unknown approaching being, the origin must be evil.
Why Dispelling Evil is More Important than Bringing Good:
Therefore, conveying safety and security is paramount when approaching another person, hence the custom of beginning with "Salāmun ‘alaykum."
The phrase "Salāmun ‘alaykum" implies peace upon a group, which is correct both rationally and legally. Legally, humans are accompanied by guardian angels (82:10-11). Rationally, human souls are varied (intellectual, base, passionate, wrathful). Each lower group has a higher, ruling spirit (like a father to his children) that inspires them. Furthermore, disembodied spirits similar in nature become attached to the body, assisting its actions. Thus, the speaker is greeting all the spirits accompanying the person due to spiritual affinity.
When human souls attain true knowledge and virtue, their lights reflect upon each other like facing mirrors. This is why etiquette dictates beginning lessons with praise to God, blessings upon angels and prophets, and supplication for the teacher—to strengthen the connection between the student's spirit and these holy spirits, allowing the student to receive divine illumination. When one says "Salāmun ‘alaykum," a strong connection is established, leading to the alignment of spirits and reflection of lights.
Al-Wāḥidī states that sakan (سكن) linguistically means that to which one finds repose. Meaning: Your prayer for them causes their souls to settle toward you.
Commentators offered:
The author adds: The spirit of Muhammad (PBUH) was powerful, luminous, and pure. When he prayed for them and mentioned them with good, the effects of his spiritual power flowed onto their souls, illuminating them, purifying their secrets, and moving them from darkness to light, from the corporeal to the spiritual (as detailed in Issue 5).
He hears their words and knows their intentions.
{Have they not known that Allah is He Who accepts the repentance from His servants and takes the charities, and that Allah is the Accepter of Repentance, the Merciful?} (ألم يعلموا أن الله هو يقبل التوبة عن عباده ويأخذ الصدقات وأن الله هو التواب الرحيم)
