CHAPTER 4, VERSES 29 - 30
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَن تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنكُمْۚ
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَنفُسَكُمْۚ
إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا ﴿٢٩﴾ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ عُدْوَانًا وَظُلْمًا فَسَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِ نَارًاۚ
وَكَانَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ يَسِيرًا ﴿٣٠﴾
O you who believe! do not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful means, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your selves; surely Allāh is Merciful to you (29). And whoever does this in aggression and injustice, We will soon cast him into fire; and this is easy to Allāh (30).
* * * * *
COMMENTARY
The verses have a sort of connection with the preceding ones, inasmuch as these contain prohibition of swallowing up properties by wrongful means, while the former had, inter alia, prohibited usurping women’s dowries by confining and restraining them and exceeding the limit. We may say that these verses describe a rule in its general form while the former had given one of its specific examples.
QUR’ĀN:
O you who believe! do .not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful means, except that it be trading by your mutual consent;: The connotation of:eating is well-known; it means using up an edible items bit by bit by swallowing. As it implies mastery, control and consumption, they say: The fire ate the fire-wood; as the fire annihilates the wood by burning, it is likened to consuming the food by eating and swallowing. Also they say: He ate the property; i.e., he consumed it by getting control over it. This is because the main use a man makes of a property is to eat it, as taking food is the most essential thing man needs for his existence; that is why, if he uses a thing, it is said, He has eaten it. But this word is not applied to every use; it implies the use with complete mastery over the item in a way that removes all other’s control over it; it may be through possession or such other authority. In short, he consumes the goods by having mastery over it as an eater uses up the food by eating.
An action is called ‘wrongful’ when it does not have a right purpose, a wise objective. ‘‘at-Tijārah’’ (اَلتِجَارَةُ = trade) entails managing the capital to get profit, as ar-Rāghib has said in his Mufradātu ’l-Qur’ān; he has also said: ‘‘There is no other word in Arabic in which ta (ت ) is followed by jim (ج ).’’ However, it implies a deal of sale and purchase.
Why has the clause, ‘‘do not swallow up your property’’, been qualified with the words, ‘‘among yourselves’’? The qualifying phrase connotes collective earnings and joint usage of property. Consequently it implies, or shows, that the forbidden swallowing up refers to that usage where the property is variously rotated and circulated among themselves. Thus the sentence, when further qualified with, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, makes such dealings unlawful which do not lead the society to happiness and success, which bring harm to it and push it to corruption and destruction; these are the dealings which are unlawful in the eyes of sharī‘ah, like interest, gambling and deceptive trade, e.g., selling something for stone-fruit or rubble and things like that.
Accordingly, the excepted clause, ‘‘except that it be trading by your mutual consent’’, is unrelated to the main sentence; it is a disjointed exception; yet it was put here to remove a possible misunderstanding. When the verse prohibited eating up people’s property by wrongful means - and a lot of dealings prevalent in a corrupted society, through which properties change hands, are unlawful in the sharī‘ah’s eyes, like deals involving interest, cheating, gambling, etc. - someone could think that it would demolish the pillars of society, and tear the social fabric to pieces, leading people to perdition and destruction.
To remove that misgiving, the excepted clause mentions one type of dealing which can regulate the diverse affairs of the society, strengthen its back-bone and keep it steadfast, and that is the trade with mutual consent, done in correct way, which can easily fulfil all needs of society.
This exception is not unlike that used in the verses: The day on which neither property will avail nor sons, except him who comes to Allāh with a submissive heart (26:88 - 89). As the first sentence had asserted that property or sons will be of no avail on the Day of Resurrection, a misgiving could creep into hearts that there was no way of succeeding on that day; because the main things which benefit a man were property and sons; and if these two could not help, then what was left there except failure and hopelessness? The excepted clause provides answer to this unspoken question; it shows that there was another factor which could bring complete success on that day (although it is neither property nor sons); and that is a submissive heart.
The view we have taken - that it is a disjointed exceptional clause - is more in conformity with the context. The clause, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, is a basic factor, as is the case in verse 188 of chap.2: And do not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful means, neither seek to gain access thereby to the authorities, so that you may swallow up a portion of the property of men wrongfully while you know.
Accordingly, there is no need to suppose that the verse is particularized by other lawful dealings and recognized transfers - other than trade - which transfer possession and regularize management, like gift, compromise, prize, as well as dowry, inheritance and similar things.
Some people have said that the exception in this verse is jointed and the clause, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, has only explanatory value; and that it shows the condition of the main clause, after exclusion of the excepted clause (i.e., the remainder is covered by prohibition). Accordingly, the meaning will be as follows: Do not swallow up your property among yourselves, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; if you ate it by any means other than trade, it would be swallowing it up wrongfully which is prohibited. It is the same style as you say: Do not hit an orphan except for teaching him.
COMMENT:
Although such usage is correct and well-known among the Arabists, yet you have seen that taking it as a disjointed exception is more in conformity with the context.
Someone has said: What this verse disallows is spending wealth in ways not liked by Allāh; and ‘trade’ refers to its use in what Allāh is pleased with. A third one has said that this verse implies total prohibition of eating other people’s property without giving something in exchange. He claims that after this verse was revealed, people refrained from eating anything in one another’s house; it continued until this rule was abrogated by verse 61 of chap.24: There is no blame on yourselves that you eat from your houses, or your brothers’ houses It is no sin in you that you eat together or separately.
COMMENT:
As you have seen, such interpretations are far-fetched, having no connection with the wordings of the verse.
A really amazing explanation has been given by someone who has tried to combine between the claim that the exception here was a jointed one and the view that the qualifying phrase, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, was a basic condition - not merely an explanatory clause. The following is the gist of what he has written:
‘‘ ‘Wrongful means’ implies swallowing up a property without giving in exchange something equal in value. The main sentence shows that it is unlawful to take someone’s property wrongfully without giving something in return. Then trade has been excepted from it, although most of the trade is not free from wrongful ways; because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fix the exact return, even with the help of the most sensitive balance, in such a way that the price is exactly equal to the commodity in value.
‘‘Accordingly, the exception implies that the sharī‘ah would tolerate a deal in which goods were more valuable than the price, or vice versa, or where a deal was done because the trader had made his goods seem beautiful and attractive, using rhetorical flourishes - but without adulteration, cheating or deception - as happens in many cases, or because of other similar reasons. All this is wrongful trade, but the sharī‘ah has allowed it, giving the traders some latitude and indulgence. Otherwise, none would have gone into trading profession, and the social system based on religion would have been disturbed.’’
COMMENT:
Its incorrectness is clear from the afore-mentioned explanation. ‘‘al-Bātil’’ (اَلْبَاطِلُ = wrong; void), as understood by scholars of the language, is that which does not lead to the desired effect. What is the desired effect of sale or trade? It is to exchange the goods and price and reciprocally transfer their possession from the buyer to the seller and vice versa. This fulfills the needs of both parties and each gets through this deal what he wants. This effect is achieved when both goods and price are equal as well as when there is some difference - if the deficiency is compensated with some other factor, e.g., the longing of the buyer to acquire that item, or his apprehension in case he does not purchase it, or some other benefits found in it.
We know that some such factors are involved, when both parties agree to the deal; and after the agreement, the exchange is not counted as wrong or void.
Moreover, no one familiar with the Qur’ānic style can ever doubt that it is impossible for the Qur’ān to order and ordain a thing after counting it as void and wrong. Allāh has praised the Qur’ān that it: guides to the truth and to a right path (46:30). How can something guiding to wrong and vain be called a guide to the truth?
Also, this interpretation implies that a man is rightly guided by nature, for fulfilment of his needs, to the exchange of goods; then he is rightly guided in the same manner to the exchange through comparison between the goods and the price; then what he has been rightly guided to, cannot rightly fulfil his needs until some portion of falsehood and wrongfulness is added to it! How is it possible that nature is guided - rightly - to something which is not sufficient to fulfil its needs? A thing which can only partially satisfy its demands? How is it possible for the nature to be rightly guided to falsehood? Is there any distinctive factor between truth and falsehood except the same guidance or absence of guidance? Keeping all these aspects in view, there is no alternative for a man, who takes the exception in this verse as jointed, but to say that the clause, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, is just an explanatory one.
Even more strange is the following explanation which someone has reportedly written: ‘‘This disjointed exception indicates that all that is in this world - be it trade or some other similar thing - is just vain and void, because it is not ever-lasting, not enduring. A wise person should not involve himself in wordly affairs lest he neglects preparation for the next world which is far better and more abiding than this life.’’
COMMENT:
This too is wrong. If it is accepted, then it will be a point in favour of taking it as a jointed, not disjointed, exception. Moreover, such spiritual realities may be suitable for the explanation of the verses as the following: And this life of the world is nothing but a sport and a play; and as for the next abode, that most surely is the life (29:64); What is with you passes away and what is with Allāh is enduring (16:96); Say: ‘‘What is with Allāh is better than sport and (better) than merchandise’’ (62:11). But in the context of the verse under discussion, applying such points would mean legalizing of wrongful things. The Qur’ān is too sublime to allow wrongfulness by any means.
QUR’ĀN:
and do not kill your selves ...: Apparently the sentence prohibits suicide. Yet, it comes after the words, do not swallow up your property among yourselves, which obviously treat the whole community of the believers as one individual being who owns a property which he should eat by other than wrongful means. This conjunction may imply, or clearly show, that the word, ‘‘yourselves’’, refers to all members of the believing society, taken as one individual, each individual’s soul is the other’s. In such a society, man’s life is his own, and also others’ lives are his own. Whether he kills himself or kills someone else, he actually destroys his own self. Seen in this light, the sentence, ‘‘do not kill your selves’’, will have a general import, covering suicide and murder both.
It may be inferred from ending clause, ‘‘surely Allāh is Merciful to you’’,that the above prohibition of killing oneself covers also the situations where man puts his life in danger, or commits such acts as might result in his being killed. Obviously, the reasoning - Mercy - given for the prohibition is more agreeable to this meaning. It will increase the scope of the verse. This appropriateness supports the view that the end clause gives only the reason of the order, ‘‘do not kill your selves’’.
QUR’ĀN:
And whoever does this and this is easy to Allāh: ‘‘al-‘Udwān’’ (اَلْعُدْوَانُ ) literary means exceeding - whether it be lawful and praise-worthy or unlawful and blameworthy. Allāh says: then there should be no hostility (‘udwān) except against the oppressors (2:193);
and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression (5:2). Accordingly, its use is more general than ‘injustice’. In this verse it connotes exceeding the limits laid down by Allāh. Nuslihi nāran (نُصْليهِ نَاراً = We shall burn him into fire).
The verse, unlike the preceding one, addresses the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), not the believers, because it contains the demonstrative pronoun dhālika (ذلِكَ = translated here as ‘this’) [and it, in its turn contains the second person singular pronoun,ka = ك ]. It implies that whoever among them does so - and they are one soul, one self, and a person should not try to destroy his own self - he is not a part of the believing community; therefore the believers should not be addressed when his punishment is pronounced; the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) is therefore the proper addressee, because Allāh speaks to him on all subjects concerning the believers as well as the unbelievers. Also, that is the reason why the sentence is general (And whoever does this in aggression ...), and not specific, i.e., it does not say, whoever among you does this ...
The ending clause, ‘‘and this is easy to Allāh’’, supports the view that the demonstrative pronoun, ‘this’', here refers to the prohibition of killing people; because the end of the last verse, surely Allāh is Merciful to you, was more appropriate to that prohibition, and the two ending clauses are very much in agreement with each other. Apparently the connotation is this: It is a mercy from Allāh that He forbids you to kill your own selves; otherwise it would be very easy for Him to punish a murderer by casting him in fire.
Even then, it is not very difficult to take both - the reasoning of the first verse and the threatening of the second - as related to both prohibitory orders of the first verse, i.e., not eating a property by wrongful means and not killing.
Someone has said that the reasoning and the threatening both, or at least the threatening, refers to all the prohibitions from the beginning of the chapter to this verse. Some others have said that it refers to all prohibitory orders beginning from the verse 19 of this chapter (O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should inherit women against [their] will); because nowhere else in these verses any punishment is pronounced for contravention.
COMMENT:
There is nothing to give credence to such views.
The style has been changed twice in this verse. The first verse ended on the words: surely Allāh is Merciful to you, which referred to Allāh as a third person. Then comes the clause: We will soon cast him into fire, where the Almighty speaks in first person. This change is related to the earlier mentioned change, as now the talk is addressed directly to the Prophet, and not to the believers. Finally, it again reverts to the third person: and this is easy to Allāh; this is done to describe the reason of this statement - This is easy to Him because He is Allāh.
TRADITIONS
at-Tabrisī says in Majma‘u ’l-bayān about the words of Allāh, by wrongful means, that there are two explanations given for it, one of which says that it means: usury, gambling, paying less than fair price, injustice. And he says that this meaning is narrated from al-Bāqir (a.s.).
al-Bāqir and as-Sādiq (a.s.) have said that it means gambling, forbidden deals, usury and (false) oaths. (Nahju ’l-bayān)
Asbāt ibn Sālim has said: ‘‘I was with Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.). A man came to him and said: ‘Tell me about the words of Allāh, O you who believe! do not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful means.’ He said: ‘He refers here to gambling. And as for the words, and do not kill your selves, He refers by it to a Muslim who attacks polytheists on his own, and enters their camps and is killed. So, Allāh has forbidden them to do so.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
The author says:
The verse is general and covers all unlawful ways of swallowing up. Gambling and other similar things have been mentioned only as examples. In the same way, what has been said in explanation of killing oneself, actually enlarges the circle of prohibition instead of reducing it; it does not limit the meaning to the given example.
Ishāq ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn has said: ‘‘al-Hasan ibn Zayd narrated to me, from his father, from ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a.s.) that he said: ‘I asked the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) concerning the splints that are put on broken (bones); how should such a man perform wudū’? And how will he take bath if he is in a state of major ritual impurity? He said: ‘‘It is enough for him to wipe his wet hand on it in the ritual bath and wudū’ both.’’ I said: ‘‘If there is cold and he is afraid about his self (i.e., health, or life), if he poured water on his body?’’ Then the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) recited: and do not kill your selves; surely Allāh is Merciful to you.’ ’’ (ibid.)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) has said: ‘‘Whoever intentionally kills himself, he shall enter the fire of hell, abiding therein for ever. Allāh, the High, has said: and do not kill your selves; surely Allāh is Merciful to you. And whoever does this in aggression and injustice, We will soon cast him into fire; and this is easy to Allāh.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu ’l faqīh)
The author says:
As you see, these traditions generalize the meaning of the words, and do not kill your selves ..., as we have already inferred earlier. There are other traditions of similar import.
Ibn Mājah and Ibnu ’l-Mundhir have narrated from Ibn Sa’īd that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘Surely, trade is by mutual consent.’ ’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (that he said): ‘‘Verily, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) sold (something) to a man; then he said to him: ‘Exercise your option.’ (The man) said: ‘I have opted (for it).’ Then (the Prophet) said: ‘In this manner (should be) trade.’ ’’ (ibid.)
al-Bukhārī, at-Tirmidhī and an-Nasā’ī have narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘The two parties of a sale have the option (to cancel it) as long as they have not separated, or one of them says to the other, ‘‘Exercise your option.’ ’’ (ibid.)
The author says:
The words of the Prophet, ‘‘The two parties of a sale have the option (to cancel it) as long as they have not separated’’, are also narrated through the Shī‘ī chains. The words, ‘‘or one of them says to the other, ‘Exercise your option’,’’ show a way to ascertain the other party’s consent.
* * * * *
0%
Author: Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai
