Surah At-Tawbah (9): Verses 34–35

Verse 34

It is known that the Rabbis (Ahbār) are from the Jews, and the Monks (Ruhbān) are from the Christians, according to common usage. Allah the Almighty recounts that many of them consume the property of people unjustly.

There are several points of discussion here:

Allah qualified this action with the word "{many}" (كثيرا) to indicate that this practice is characteristic of some of them, not all. A scholar/religious figure is never entirely devoid of truth. The consensus of all of them upon falsehood is nearly impossible. This implies that just as the consensus of this Ummah (Muslim community) upon falsehood does not occur, the same applies to other nations.

Allah used the expression "{they eat}" (ليأكلون) for taking wealth. The reason for this metaphor is that the greatest purpose of accumulating wealth is eating. Thus, the thing (wealth acquisition) is named after its greatest objective (eating).

Alternatively, it can be said that whoever eats something has appropriated it to himself and prevented it from reaching others. Similarly, whoever accumulates wealth appropriates it to himself and prevents it from reaching others. Since there is a similarity between eating and taking in this respect, taking is called eating.

Another possibility is that when someone who took people's wealth is asked to return it, he says, "I ate it, and nothing remains, so I cannot return it." For this reason, taking is called eating.

There are differing interpretations regarding the meaning of this injustice (بالباطل):

1. Bribery: They used to accept bribes to lighten judgments and be lenient in religious rulings.
2. Deception of the Masses: They claimed to the common people that no one could attain the pleasure of Allah except through serving and obeying them, and by spending wealth to seek their satisfaction. The common people were deceived by these lies.
3. Distorting Scripture: The Torah contained verses indicating the advent of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم). These Rabbis and Monks would offer corrupt interpretations and false justifications for these verses, thereby comforting their common people and accepting bribes.
4. Establishing False Authority: They would assert to their common people that the true religion was the one they followed. Then, they would argue that strengthening the true religion was obligatory. Subsequently, they would claim that this strengthening required their religious scholars to be great figures with vast wealth and large followings. Through this path, they compelled the masses to sacrifice their lives and wealth in their service. This is the falsehood by which they consumed people's wealth, and this method is prevalent today among most ignorant and deceitful people seeking the wealth of the foolish masses.

Then Allah says: "...and avert [them] from the way of Allah."

This is because they would kill (or severely oppose) anyone who followed the true path, preventing people from following the righteous among mankind and the scholars of the time. During the time of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), they exerted extreme effort to prevent adherence to him through all means of cunning and deception.

The author, may Allah be pleased with him, states: The ultimate goals of people in this world are wealth and status. Allah the Almighty described the Rabbis and Monks as being preoccupied with these two matters. Wealth is intended by "{they eat the property of people unjustly}", and status is intended by "{and avert [them] from the way of Allah}". If they had acknowledged that Muhammad was upon the truth, they would have been obligated to follow him, which would have invalidated their authority and removed their sanctity. Out of fear of this consequence, they vehemently prevented people from following Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), spreading doubts, devising schemes of deceit, and stopping people from accepting the true religion and following the correct path.

Verse 35

There are several points of discussion in this verse:

There are three possibilities for the meaning of "{those who}":

1. It refers specifically to the previously mentioned Rabbis and Monks.
2. It is a new statement, referring to those among the Muslims who withhold Zakāh (as some scholars suggest).
3. It refers to everyone who hoards wealth and fails to pay the obligatory rights due from it, whether they are Rabbis, Monks, or Muslims.

The wording is certainly open to all three interpretations.

It is narrated that Zayd ibn Wahb said: I passed by Abu Dharr, and I asked him, "O Abu Dharr, what brought you to this land (Syria)?" He replied, "I was in Sham (Syria) when I recited, '{And those who hoard gold and silver...}'" Mu'awiyah said, "This verse was revealed concerning the People of the Book." I replied, "It is concerning them and concerning us." This became the cause of estrangement between him and me. He wrote to 'Uthman to summon me. When I arrived in Medina, people turned away from me as if they had never seen me before. I complained about this to 'Uthman, who told me, "Move a little further away; by Allah, I will not abandon what I used to say."

Al-Ahnaf narrated that when he arrived in Medina, he saw Abu Dharr saying: "Give tidings to the disbelievers of a searing hot stone that will be heated in the Fire of Hell, placed on one of their nipples until it emerges from the nape of their neck, causing their bodies to melt. Then it will be placed on the nape of their neck until it emerges from their nipple." When the people heard this, they abandoned him. I followed him and said, "I see these people dislike what you are telling them." He replied, "What can I do about Quraysh?"

Our Master, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

• If the intent is to specify this warning to those previously mentioned (the People of the Book), the structure is: Allah described their intense greed for taking people's wealth with "{they eat the property of people unjustly}", and He described their intense stinginess and refusal to pay obligatory dues from their own wealth with "{And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah}".
• If the intent is those among the believers who withhold Zakāh, the structure is: Allah described the ugliness of their method of greedily taking people's wealth unjustly, then He encouraged the Muslims to pay the obligatory rights from their wealth, clarifying the severe warning for neglecting it.
• If the intent is everyone, the structure is: Allah described their greed in taking people's wealth unjustly, followed by a warning to everyone who refrains from paying the obligatory rights from their wealth. This serves as a reminder: since the condition of one who unjustly holds onto his own wealth is severe, what do you think of the condition of one who strives to take the wealth of others through falsehood, deceit, and trickery?

The root meaning of kanz (hoarding) in Arabic is accumulation; anything gathered together is maknūz.

The Companions differed on the meaning of this condemned hoarding:

• The Majority: It is wealth from which Zakāh has not been paid.
• 'Umar ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb (رضي الله عنه): Whatever Zakāh has been paid is not kanz.
• Ibn 'Umar: Everything from which Zakāh has been paid is not kanz, even if it is beneath seven earths. Everything from which Zakāh has not been paid is kanz, even if it is above ground.
• Jābir: If the charity (Zakāh) is taken from it, its evil is removed, and it is not kanz.
• Ibn 'Abbās: Regarding "{and spend it not in the way of Allah}", he meant those who do not pay the Zakāh of their wealth.

Al-Qāḍī stated that restricting this meaning only to withholding Zakāh is unwarranted. Rather, kanz is wealth from which what is obligatory has not been paid. This includes not only Zakāh but also obligatory expiations (kaffārāt), expenses required for Hajj or Jumu'ah, obligations related to debt, spending on family/dependents, guarantees for damages, and blood money (diya). All these categories must be included in the warning.

The Second Opinion: Hoarding refers to a large amount of wealth accumulated, whether its Zakāh has been paid or not.

Arguments for the First Opinion (Hoarding = Unpaid Zakāh):

1. The generality of Allah's statement: "{To it belongs what it has earned}" (referring to the consequences of actions), indicating that whatever a person earns is his right. Also, "{And Allah will never cause you to lose your deeds}" (Qur'an 47:36), and the Prophet's saying: "The best wealth a man can have is righteous wealth for a righteous man," and "Every man has a right to his earnings," and "What has had its Zakāh paid is not kanz, even if it is hidden, and what has reached the threshold for Zakāh but has not paid it is kanz, even if it is apparent."
2. During the Prophet's time, there were figures like 'Uthmān and 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn 'Awf, whom the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) counted among the greatest believers.
3. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) encouraged giving away a third or less upon illness. If accumulating wealth itself were forbidden, he would have commanded the healthy person to give away everything, not just the sick person.

Arguments for the Second Opinion (Hoarding = Accumulation of Large Amounts):

1. The generality of this verse suggests a prohibition on accumulating wealth. Therefore, permitting accumulation after paying Zakāh requires a separate, decisive proof to override the apparent meaning.
2. It is narrated that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said three times: "Woe to gold! Woe to silver!" When asked what wealth they should keep, he replied: "A tongue that remembers Allah, a heart that is humble, and a wife who helps one with their religion." He also said: "Whoever has gold or silver hoarded, it will be branded upon him..." A man died, and a dīnār was found in his waist wrap; the Prophet said, "A brand." Another died, and two dīnārs were found; he said, "Two brands."
3. Narrations from the Companions support this: 'Alī said: Any wealth exceeding four thousand is kanz, whether Zakāh was paid or not. Abu Hurayrah said: Every gold or silver coin that its owner seals up is kanz. Abu Ad-Dardā', upon seeing the wealthy arriving with their riches, would climb to a high place and say, "The caravans are coming, carrying fire! Give tidings to the hoarders of branding on their foreheads, flanks, backs, and bellies."
4. Allah created wealth to fulfill needs. If a person accumulates wealth beyond what fulfills his needs and prevents others who need it from accessing it, he is obstructing the manifestation of Allah's wisdom and preventing His bounty from reaching His servants.

The Correct Path: The most appropriate view is that it is preferable for a religious seeker not to accumulate vast wealth, although the outward Law (al-Shar') does not forbid it. The former is attributed to piety (Taqwā), and the latter to the literal ruling (Fatwā).

Reasons why avoiding the accumulation of vast wealth is preferable:

1. Intensified Desire: The more a person loves something, the stronger their love and inclination become as their access and enjoyment increase. A poor person has not tasted the pleasure of wealth. When he acquires a little, he tastes pleasure proportional to it, intensifying his desire. The more wealth he has, the greater his enjoyment, and the stronger his greed in seeking and acquiring it. Thus, increasing wealth causes an increase in the consuming greed, which is exhausting and severely harmful to the soul and heart. A wise person must guard against self-harm. Since the harm from greed increases with wealth, and this desire has no end, one must abandon seeking it from the beginning, as the poet said:

   He saw the matter leading to an end, So its end became its beginning.

2. Difficulty of Acquisition and Preservation: Earning wealth is arduous, and preserving it after acquisition is even more difficult. A person spends his entire life either striving to acquire it or struggling to guard it. Yet, he only benefits from a small portion and leaves the rest with regret and sighs—this is manifest loss.

3. Leading to Tyranny: Abundance of wealth and status incites transgression, as Allah says: "{Indeed, mankind transgresses, when he sees himself self-sufficient}" (Al-'Alaq 96:6-7). Transgression prevents the servant from reaching the station of the Merciful One's pleasure and leads him to failure and abandonment.

4. Legal Diminution: Allah mandated Zakāh, which is an effort to reduce wealth. If accumulation were a virtue, the Law would not seek to diminish it.

Objection: Why did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) say, "The upper hand is better than the lower hand"? Reply: The upper hand (the giver) is characterized by goodness because he gave that small amount. Because this small reduction occurred in his wealth, he attained goodness, and because the poor person received that small increase, he attained inferiority (in status relative to the giver).

Numerous reports exist regarding the warning for those who withhold Zakāh:

• For withholding Zakāh on currency: This verse, "{The Day it will be heated in the Fire of Hell...}"
• For withholding Zakāh on livestock: It is narrated that Allah punishes owners of livestock who do not pay their Zakāh by driving those animals—at their largest and strongest—over them, trampling them with their hooves and butting them with their horns. Whenever the last ones pass, the first ones return. This continues until people finish the reckoning.

The correct view with us (the Shāfi'īs) is that Zakāh is obligatory on jewelry (ornaments made of gold and silver). The evidence is Allah's statement: "{And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah—give them tidings of a painful punishment.}"

Objection: This warning applies only to men, not women. Reply: We are discussing the man who acquires jewelry for his women. Furthermore, this warning is linked to the description of hoarding gold and silver, a description suitable for this ruling: accumulating this wealth prevents its distribution to the needy, even though the accumulator has no need for it (if he needed it, he couldn't have hoarded it). The act of one who is not needy preventing wealth from the needy is suitable for being prevented from benefit. Thus, this warning is tied to a suitable attribute, and a ruling following a suitable attribute must be based on that attribute. Wherever this attribute occurs, the warning must follow. Moreover, the general texts mandating Zakāh apply to permissible jewelry: The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: "Bring the quarter of a tenth of your wealth," and "On silver, a quarter of a tenth," and he told 'Alī: "O 'Alī, Zakāh is upon you; if you possess twenty mithqāls, give half a mithqāl," and "There is no right in wealth except Zakāh," and "There is no Zakāh on wealth until a year has passed over it." This verse, along with all these reports, mandates Zakāh on permissible jewelry. We find no counter-evidence in the Qur'an indicating that Zakāh is not due on permissible jewelry. Nor is there counter-evidence in the Hadith, except for a report narrated by our colleagues: "There is no Zakāh on permissible jewelry." However, Al-Tirmidhī said that no authentic report regarding jewelry has been established from the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Even if this report were authentic, we interpret it to refer to pearls (al-La'āli'), because he said, "There is no Zakāh on ḥilyah (ornaments)," and the word ḥilyah is singular definite. We have shown that if there is a prior context, the word must refer to it. The context in the Qur'an for the word ḥilyah is pearls, as Allah says: "{and you extract from it jewelry that you wear}" (An-Naḥl 16:14). If this is the case, the word ḥilyah refers to pearls, nullifying its apparent meaning. Furthermore, caution dictates affirming the obligation of Zakāh. Finally, this text cannot be refuted by analogy, as a clear text takes precedence over analogy. Thus, what we have stated is correct.

Allah mentioned two things: gold and silver. Then He said, "{and spend it not}" (using the feminine plural pronoun ها). There are two perspectives:

1. The pronoun refers to the meaning:
   • The meaning is that each one (gold and silver) is a collective entity (like a mass of dinārs and dirhams). This is like saying, "{And if two factions of the believers fight...}" (Al-Ḥujurāt 49:9).
   • The implied meaning is: "and they do not spend those hoards."
   • Al-Zajjāj said the implication is: "and they do not spend those monies."

2. The pronoun refers to the wording:
   • The implication is: "and they do not spend silver," omitting gold because it is included under silver in terms of being precious objects, noble substances, and objects of hoarding. Since they share most attributes, mentioning one suffices for the other.
   • Mentioning one can suffice for the other, like in "{And when they see trade or amusement, they disperse to it}" (Al-Jumu'ah 62:11), where the pronoun refers to trade. Or "{And whoever earns a sin or an error and then casts it upon an innocent person...}" (An-Nisā' 4:112), where the pronoun refers to the error (ithm).
   • The implication is: "and they do not spend silver, and gold likewise," similar to the poetic line: And I and Qiyār are strangers here, meaning Qiyār is likewise a stranger.

Objection: Why were gold and silver singled out from all other wealth? Reply: Because they are the fundamental standard of wealth and the primary objects intended for hoarding.

Allah mentions those who hoard gold and silver, then says: "{give them tidings of a painful punishment}" (فبشرهم بعذاب أليم). This is a form of mockery (tahakkum), as those who hoard gold and silver do so to attain relief on the day of need. It is said: "This is the relief," just as one says, "Their greeting is nothing but striking," or "Their honor is nothing but insulting." Furthermore, tabshīr (giving tidings) is associated with good news that affects the heart, causing a change in facial complexion, which applies whether the complexion changes due to joy or grief.

Then Allah says: "{The Day it will be heated in the Fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads and their flanks and their backs, [it will be said], 'This is what you hoarded for yourselves; so taste what you used to hoard.'}"

There are several questions:

Why is it said "{it will be heated}" (يحمى عليها) instead of "the iron will be heated" (يُحمى الحديد)?

Answer: It does not mean those monies will be heated upon the fire. Rather, it means the Fire will be heated upon those monies (gold and silver), meaning a fire of intense heat will be kindled for them, derived from the description "{a scorching fire}" (نار حامية). If it were said, "The Day it will be heated" (يوم تحمى), this nuance would be lost.

If they ask: If the meaning is "The Day the Fire will be heated upon it," why is the verb used in the passive form referring to the money (عليها)? Answer: Because the word Nār (Fire) is grammatically feminine, but the verb is seemingly not attributed to it (it is attributed to عليها - "upon it"). Therefore, it is appropriate for the verb to be masculine (referring to the money/metal) or feminine (referring to the Fire). Ibn 'Āmir recited it with the feminine form (تحمى).

Answer: The implication is: "Give them tidings of a painful punishment the Day it will be heated..."

Answer: There are several reasons:

1. The goal of earning wealth is achieving joy in the heart, whose effect appears on the faces (جباههم - foreheads); achieving satiety, which causes the flanks (جنوبهم) to swell; and wearing fine clothes placed upon their backs (ظهورهم). Since they sought adornment for these three areas, branding will occur on the foreheads, flanks, and backs.
2. These three areas are hollow, containing delicate internal structures that feel intense pain from the slightest external impact, unlike other organs.
3. Abu Bakr Al-Warrāq said: These locations were specified because when the wealthy person saw a poor person beside him, he would turn away and show his back.
4. The meaning is that they will be branded on the four directions: from the front on the forehead, from the back on the backs, and from the right and left on the flanks.
5. The forehead is the most delicate part of the human body. The flank is intermediate in delicacy and firmness. The back is the firmest part. Thus, Allah indicates that these three categories of organs will be submerged in branding, drawing attention to the comprehensive nature of the branding.
6. The perfection of the human body lies in its beauty and strength. Beauty is located in the face, and the most honored part of the face is the forehead; branding the forehead completely removes beauty. Strength is located in the back and flanks; branding them removes the body's strength. The result is that branding these three areas causes the loss of both beauty and strength, which are precisely what man sought wealth for.

Answer: The implication of the verse is the entire amount, because no specific part of it was the right of the owner; rather, every part was connected to a right. Therefore, Allah must punish him with every part.

Then Allah says: "{This is what you hoarded for yourselves}" (هاذا ما كنزتم لانفسكم). The implication is: It will be said to them, "This is what you hoarded for yourselves; taste it!" The purpose is to magnify the warning. When they witness what they are being punished with—whether a dirham or a dīnār, or a plate made of either—they will realize that it originated from the right they withheld, and they will realize the opposite. Allah magnifies their rebuke by saying: "This is what you hoarded for yourselves; you did not use it to attain your Lord's pleasure, nor did you intend to benefit yourselves or save yourselves from your Lord's punishment by spending it. Instead, you treated it as if you were saving it up to become a punishment for yourselves, as you now witness." Then Allah says: "{so taste what you used to hoard}" (فذوقوا ما كنتم تكنزون). This means: You did not spend it for the benefits of your religion or your worldly life as commanded by Allah. "{So taste it}"—taste the punishment due to that hoarding, and nothing else.

Verse 36