Verses 23–39
These are a number of universal principles of the religion stated by God which follow what He says a few verses earlier: Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright… ()
Commentary
وَقَضَىٰ رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَّآ إِيَّاهُ وَبِٱلْوَٰلِدَيْنِ إِحْسَـٰنًا ۚ إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِندَكَ ٱلْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَآ أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُل لَّهُمَآ أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُل لَّهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا ٢٣
(17:23) And your Lord has decreed that you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (so much as) “Ugh” nor chide them, and speak to them gracious words.
“That you shall not serve (any) but Him”: This is a negation and exception, where the particle an (“that”) turns what follows into an infinitive (an maṣdariyyah). It could also be that this expression is a prohibition and exception, where the particle an either turns the subsequent part into an infinitive or turns it into an exposition of the previous part. Either way, the excepted element (mustathnā) and antecedent (mustathnā minhu) can be broken down into two phrases: “Serve Him” and “do not serve anyone else.” These two phrases can alternatively be construed as a single command: to serve him alone.
Whether the statement is broken down into two phrases or interpreted as a single phrase, it is the object of decree (qaḍāʾ). Decree here is legislative decree (al-qaḍāʾ al-tashrīʿī), which pertains to shariah rulings and injunctions. It is a decisive rule and an incontrovertible command. Such decree can equally apply to commands and prohibitions; it can establish negative rulings just as it establishes positive rulings. But had this been worded as a “command” (amr)—that is, “your Lord has commanded (amara) that you shall not serve (any) but Him”—then its inclusion of a prohibition would have been figurative and metaphorical.
The command to serving God sincerely [that is, Him alone] is the greatest commandment of religion. The duty to serve Him exclusively is the greatest of all duties, just as disobeying this command—that is, associating partners with Him—is the greatest of all major sins. He says: Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases ().
All sins can ultimately be reduced to this, because if it were not for yielding to something other than God—like devils among the jinn or mankind, or one’s own desire and ignorance—then one would not disobey what his Lord has commanded him to do or forbidden him from doing. Ṭāʿah (obedience, compliance) is ʿibādah (service, worship). He says: Did I not charge you, O children of Adam, that you should not serve Satan? (); Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god…? ().
Even an unbeliever who denies the existence of the Maker (al-Ṣāniʿ) is a polytheist, because while his primary nature (fiṭrah) attests to the Creator, he ascribes the conduct and direction of affairs in the world to matter, nature, history or something else.
It is due to its significance that this rule has preceded the other important rules that follow, including [the prohibition of] being undutiful toward one’s parents, withholding one’s financial dues, squandering, killing one’s children, adultery, killing an innocent soul, taking the property of orphans, breaching a vow, cheating on weight, following something without knowledge, and arrogance. He then concludes these by forbidding polytheism a second time [in verse ].
…and goodness (iḥsānan) to your parents: This adds to the previous phrase. That is: And your Lord has commanded you to be thoroughly good to your parents. Iḥsān (doing good) is the opposite of isāʾah (doing evil). This is one of the greatest obligatory duties after observing God’s unity (tawḥīd), just as being undutiful toward them is one of the greatest major sins after associating partners with God. That is why He refers to it after commanding to monotheism and puts it before all the other stated and enumerated rules. This [order] is also seen in a number of other places in the Qur’an.
It was discussed earlier under a similar verse—verse —that the emotional bond between the parents and the child is one of the greatest relationships that sustain the human society. It is a very natural means for holding married couples together. One’s primary nature commands to this societal tradition of respecting one’s parents, honoring them and being kind to them. If this rule is not practiced and a society stops observing it, then the children’s emotional ties and connections to their parents will cease and all social bonds will unravel.
…If (immā) either or both of them reach old age (kibar) with you, say not to them (so much as) "Ugh" (uff) nor chide them (la tanharhumā, from nahr), and speak to them a gracious word: Immā is in fact in-mā, made up of the conditional particle in and an extra mā. It is what makes it correct to add the emphatic letter nūn to the verb in the conditional clause [that is, yablughanna]. Kibar means old age. Uff is a word that indicates one’s irritation and resentment. Nahr means chiding by shouting, raising one’s voice and speaking harshly.
Mentioning old age in particular is because it is the most difficult stage that one’s parents pass through, during which they feel the need for their children’s help to cover for their life’s duties which they are unable to perform.
That is one of the things which parents hope and expect of their children when they raise them and bring them up when they are little and at a time when they have no ability to do any of life’s necessary things.
Thus the verse indicates the incumbency of honoring them and being on one’s best behavior at all times when dealing with them and speaking to them, especially when they most need it, which is when one or both of them reach old age in the child’s presence. The meaning of the verse is clear.
وَٱخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ ٱلذُّلِّ مِنَ ٱلرَّحْمَةِ وَقُل رَّبِّ ٱرْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِى صَغِيرًا ٢٤
(17:24) And make yourself submissively gentle to them (ikhfaḍ lahumā janāḥ al-dhull) with compassion, and say: O my Lord! have compassion on them, as they brought me up (when I was) little.
Khafḍ al-janāḥ is a metaphor for extreme humility and submissiveness in speech and action. It is derived from a young bird’s lowering (khafḍ) its wing to implore its mother to feed it. That is why the verse says “the wing of submissiveness,” for that is the habit of young birds when they want to be fed by their mothers. The implied meaning is: Face them when dealing with them in a way which shows your humility, submissiveness and subservience to them out of compassion for them. This is if dhull means humility. It could also mean acquiescence (muṭāwaʿah), which is derived from a bird’s lowering its wing to gather its young underneath itself out of compassion for them and to protect them.
…and say: O my Lord! have compassion on them, as they brought me up (when I was) little: That is: Remember their bringing you up when you were little, and pray to God to have compassion on them just as they had compassion on you and brought you up when you were little.
Majmaʿ al-bayān says, “It can be deduced from this [command] that a child’s prayer for his dead parent is heard. Otherwise it would make no sense to command to it.” What can be deduced is the possibility that such prayer will be answered. Even if one’s parents do not benefit from such prayer, this is a religious etiquette that benefits the child. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason to say that it is exclusive to prayer for a dead parent given that the verse is unqualified [by such condition].
رَّبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِى نُفُوسِكُمْ ۚ إِن تَكُونُوا۟ صَـٰلِحِينَ فَإِنَّهُۥ كَانَ لِلْأَوَّٰبِينَ غَفُورًا ٢٥
(17:25) Your Lord knows best what is in your minds; if you are good, then He is surely Forgiving to those who turn (to Him) frequently.
The context indicates that this verse is related to what precedes it: the duty to be kind to one’s parents and the sin of undutifulness toward them. Thus, this verse concerns cases when a child impulsively says or does something that hurts his parents or violates their rights. The verse has not explicitly mentioned this in order to indicate that it is not befitting to even speak of such behavior, just as it is not befitting to perform it.
Your Lord knows best what is in your minds: That is: He knows it better than you. This is a prelude to what follows (if you are good). The implied meaning is: If you are indeed characterized by goodness and God knows this from your hearts, then He is surely…
…then He is surely Forgiving to those who turn (to Him) frequently: This is about those who come back to Him upon every act of disobedience. It is an example of stating a general rule in the place of a particular application.
The implied meaning is: Assuming that you are good and God knows this from your hearts, if you return and repent to Him after an outburst from you against your parents, then God will forgive you for that. He is surely Forgiving to those who turn (to Him) frequently.
وَءَاتِ ذَا ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُۥ وَٱلْمِسْكِينَ وَٱبْنَ ٱلسَّبِيلِ وَلَا تُبَذِّرْ تَبْذِيرًا ٢٦
(17:26) And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully.
This verse has already been discussed with regard to similar verses. This verse shows that giving to the near of kin, the needy and the wayfarer was legislated before the migration, because it is a Meccan verse in a Meccan chapter.
…and do not squander wastefully (lā tubadhdhir tabdhīran): Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
Tabdhīr means to scatter wastefully. Its root meaning is to scatter something the way seeds (sing. badhr) are scattered, except that it is particularly used in a scattering that is done in a destructive way. What is done in a constructive manner is not called tabdhīr even if there is a lot of it.
إِنَّ ٱلْمُبَذِّرِينَ كَانُوٓا۟ إِخْوَٰنَ ٱلشَّيَـٰطِينِ ۖ وَكَانَ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ لِرَبِّهِۦ كَفُورًا ٢٧
(17:27) Surely the squanderers are the brothers of the Satans and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord.
This is the reason for why squandering is being prohibited. It means: Do not squander. If you do squander, you will surely be one of the squanderers, and the squanderers are the brothers of the devils. They are brothers in the sense that there is a bond between them like two full brothers that are counterparts in their common root. He has alluded to this in these verses:
And We have appointed for them comrades ().
Gather together those who were unjust and their associates ().
“Their associates” (azwājahum) here are “their comrades” (Qur’anāʾ) [in verse ].
And their brethren increase them in error, then they cease not. ()
This clarifies the merit of those who have interpreted “the brothers of the devils” as “the devils’ associates” over those who have interpreted it as “the devils’ followers that tread their path.”
…and Satan (al-Shayṭān) is ever ungrateful to his Lord: Satan means Iblīs, who is the father of the devils, who are in turn his offsprings and hosts. Based on this, the article al [in al-Shayṭān] is a definitive one that refers to a particular instance of Shayṭān [that is, Iblīs] that is already known in the audience’s mind. It is also possible that the article denotes the genus, that is, the genus of the devils (sing. shayṭān). In any event, his being ungrateful to his Lord is because he is ungrateful for God’s blessings, for he spends the strength, power and ability that God has given him in the way of leading people astray, directing them to disobedience, and calling them to sin and ungratefulness toward His blessings.
Now it should be clear why the verse first says shayāṭīn (devils) in plural, but then Shayṭān (Satan) in singular. This is because what is being said first is that every squanderer is a brother to a specific devil, which makes all of them brothers to devils [in plural]. But what is meant in the second part of the verse is either Iblīs—the father of the devils—or the genus of devils.
وَإِمَّا تُعْرِضَنَّ عَنْهُمُ ٱبْتِغَآءَ رَحْمَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكَ تَرْجُوهَا فَقُل لَّهُمْ قَوْلًا مَّيْسُورًا ٢٨
(17:28) And if (immā) you turn away (tuʿriḍanna) from them to seek mercy from your Lord, which you hope for, speak to them a gentle word.
What is meant by immā is just the particle in (lit. “if”), and the extra mā is added for emphasis. Letter nūn [in tuʿriḍanna: “you turn away”] is also for emphasis.
The context testifies that this verse is talking about spending money. Thus, “if you turn away from them” means turning away from whoever asks one for some money to give him in order to fulfil his need. Yet it does not include every kind of turning away however it may be, but only turning away when one does not have any money to give the person to spend on himself, while he is also hopeful of getting a hold of some [in the near future]. This is inferred from His following words: to seek mercy from your Lord, which you hope for. That is, you are turning away from them neither because you are stingy despite being loaded with money, nor because you do not have anything and are not anticipating to find anything, but because you do not have any money yet you seek, strive and hope to get a hold of some mercy from your Lord—that is, His sustenance.
…speak to them a gentle word: That is: Be easy and lenient in speech; do not speak roughly and do not refuse drily, as He says: And as for him who asks, do not chide (him) (). Instead, refuse them with an easy, gentle word.
Al-Kashshāf says:
“To seek mercy from your Lord” could be a complement of the apodosis that has come later. In other words: Be lenient and gentle in your speech with them, and make them a beautiful promise out of mercy for them, that you may soothe and pacify their hearts— do this “to seek mercy from your Lord.” That is, seek the mercy that you hope for from your Lord by showing mercy to them. Alternatively, it could be a complement of the protasis. That is: If you turn away from them because you do not have any sustenance from your Lord yet you hope that He will bring about an opening for you, then turn them away pleasantly. Here, mercy refers to sustenance, and “seeking” means “missing,” because one who is short of sustenance hopes and wishes for it. Missing [something] is a reason to wish for it, and wishing for it is the effect of [missing it]. Hence the effect has been put in the place of the cause.
وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَدَكَ مَغْلُولَةً إِلَىٰ عُنُقِكَ وَلَا تَبْسُطْهَا كُلَّ ٱلْبَسْطِ فَتَقْعُدَ مَلُومًا مَّحْسُورًا ٢٩
(17:29) And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth, lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off.
“Making the hand to be shackled to the neck” is a metaphorical way of talking about withholding, like the case of one who does not give or donate because of miserliness and avarice. “Stretching the hand to the utmost” is a metaphor for donating everything that one has such that nothing is left, like one who opens his palm completely flat such that it cannot hold anything [like rainwater]. Thus, the verse involves an emphasized prohibition against either extreme with regard to donation.
…lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off (maḥsūran, from ḥasr). This is a consequence of “nor stretch it forth to the utmost…” Ḥasr means being cut off, or being naked. The implied meaning is: Do not stretch your hand forth to the utmost of its stretching forth, because that would make you sit down while being blameworthy to yourself and others. It will also cut you off from the necessities of life, or it will leave you naked, such that you cannot come out among the people, meet them and deal with them.
Some exegetes have suggested that “lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off”is a consequence of both of the previous sentences, not just a consequence of the second one. The implied meaning would then be: If you withhold, then you will sit down blamed and censurable; and if you spend excessively, then you will be regretful and depressed.
The problem with this meaning is that there is no evidence that the apparent meaning of “nor stretch it forth to the utmost” is a prohibition of squander and prodigality. Likewise, spending all of one’s wealth in the way of God is not necessarily squander or extravagance, even though it is being prohibited in this verse. As we said above, tabdhīr (squander) is defined as improper and inappropriate spending. However, spending a large amount or all of one’s wealth in God’s way and for those who deserve it is not improper use of it. Therefore, there is no reason to regret or sorrow for something that is not lost itself and does not cause the loss of anything else.
إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَبْسُطُ ٱلرِّزْقَ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيَقْدِرُ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهِۦ خَبِيرًۢا بَصِيرًا ٣٠
(17:30) Surely your Lord makes plentiful the means of subsistence for whom He pleases and He straightens (them); surely He is ever Aware of, Seeing, His servants.
The apparent context of the verses suggests that this verse is a justification for the prohibition of either extremes in donation mentioned in the last verse.
The implied meaning is: This is your Lord’s custom and tradition that He expands His sustenance for whomever He wishes, and contracts it for whomever He wishes. He neither expands it to the utmost nor withholds it altogether, and He does this according to the welfare of His servants, for He is ever Aware of and Seeing His servants. Thus it is befitting that you also adopt the conduct and manners of your Lord by following a path of moderation and avoiding either extremes.
Some exegetes have said that this verse justifies the previous one by saying that the expansion and contraction of sustenance exclusively belong to God. It is a divine affair and you should not take charge of it. Instead, you must keep a balance, without deviating from it to either more or less. Others have suggested other interpretations for how this verse may justify the previous one, but all of them are unlikely explanations.
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوٓا۟ أَوْلَـٰدَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلَـٰقٍ ۖ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُهُمْ وَإِيَّاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ قَتْلَهُمْ كَانَ خِطْـًٔا كَبِيرًا ٣١
(17:31) And do not kill your children for fear of poverty (al-imlāq); We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong (khiṭʾan).
Imlāq means poverty and need. Al-Mufradāt says [summarized]:
Khaṭaʾ means deviating in direction. There are a few types of it: 1. Intending what should not be intended and done. This is a total wrong for which one will be held accountable. Its conjugates are khaṭiʾah yakhṭaʾu khiṭʾan. He says: Surely to kill them is a great wrong []; and We were certainly sinners [].
2. Intending something good, but missing the target. It is said: akhṭaʾa ikhṭāʾan [that is, he made a mistake] and the doer is called a mukhṭiʾ. Such a person has the right intention but the wrong action. This is what is meant where He says: Whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave [].
3. Intending what is wrong but accidentally missing it. Such a person has the wrong intention but the right action. He deserves rebuke for his intention and no praise for his action.
Overall, whenever one intends something but happens to miss it [in practice] it is called that “he missed” (akhṭaʾa), while if he does what he was intending it is called that “he hit” (aṣāba). Sometimes anyone who either intends or does a wrong act is said to have “missed.” That is why it is said [and it could be] that one “hits the wrong,” “misses the right,” “hits the right,” or “misses the wrong.” As you can see, this is a common term that is used for more than one meaning. So one should ponder and research in order to obtain what is meant [in each case].
The verse involves a severe prohibition against killing one’s children for fear of poverty and need. “We give them sustenance and yourselves (too)”: This justifies the prohibition and sets the grounds for what follows: surely to kill them is a great wrong.
The implied meaning is: Do not kill your children for fear of being afflicted by poverty and need—on the grounds that you would lose your honor by forcing them [your children] to accept the disgrace of beggary, forcing you to give your daughters in marriage to men who are not a match, or other unwanted consequences. You are not the ones who sustain them now, so how could you fear failing to do so due to poverty and hardship?! Rather, We are the Ones Who sustain them and you. Surely to kill them is a great wrong.
The command against killing one’s children in fear of poverty and need has appeared more than once in His Book. This falls under killing an innocent soul, which His Book has prohibited with utmost emphasis. Yet, this specific type of killing an innocent soul has been separately addressed and particularly prohibited because it is the most reprehensible evil and the most intense form of hardheartedness. It has been said that the Arabs used to live in lands where there were frequent famines and droughts. Whenever there were indications of poverty and hardship due to an upcoming famine or any other cause, they used to start killing their children right away, in fear of losing their honor and pride. This could be another reason for this particular prohibition.
Al-Kashshāf says:
Killing their children [in this verse] refers to their custom of burying their daughters alive. They used to bury their daughters alive in fear of poverty and need, so God has prohibited them against it by guaranteeing their sustenance.
However, this is apparently not true. The verses that address the issue of burying daughters alive are other verses that explicitly talk about it and prohibit it. For example, He says: And when the female infant buried alive is asked: For what sin she was killed? (); And when a daughter is announced to one of them his face becomes black and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that which is announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in the dust? Now surely evil is what they judge ().
But the current verse of discussion—and other similar verses to it —prohibit the killing of children out of fear of poverty, and there is no reason why children here should be restricted to girls while the term is not limited to that. Likewise, there is no reason why “fear of poverty” [in this verse] should be interpreted as “disgrace” [in ] because they are two different concepts. The truth is that this verse talks about another evil custom—other than burying daughters alive to avoid disgrace—and that is the custom of killing one’s children—boy or girl—in fear of poverty and need. This is what these verses prohibit.
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلزِّنَىٰٓ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ فَـٰحِشَةً وَسَآءَ سَبِيلًا ٣٢
(17:32) And go not nigh to adultery; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.
This verse prohibits adultery in an exaggerated way, because it commands against even getting close to it. This prohibition is justified by saying, “surely it is an indecency,” which shows that indecency is an inseparable quality of adultery. Furthermore, it is “an evil way,” meaning that it is an evil way that leads to the corruption of every aspect of the society as it unties social ties, disturbs social order, and causes the destruction of humanity. He has threatened those who commit it with much emphasis when He describes the believers as follows: And (who) do not commit adultery and he who does this shall find a requital of sin; The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement; Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed ().
Discourse
The discussion “The Prohibition of Adultery: A Qur’anic & Sociological Discussion” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا۟ ٱلنَّفْسَ ٱلَّتِى حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ إِلَّا بِٱلْحَقِّ ۗ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِۦ سُلْطَـٰنًا فَلَا يُسْرِف فِّى ٱلْقَتْلِ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ مَنصُورًا ٣٣
(17:33) And do not kill any one (al-nafs) whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.
The verse forbids the killing of an innocent soul. Except for a just cause refers to cases where the killing is for a just cause, such as cases of murder, apostasy or other acts that have been outlined in the shariah. The verse describes any one [that is, any soul, al-nafs] as whom Allah has forbidden, without any qualification [of being Muslim or monotheist]. This could allude to the prohibition of killing any human being in all divine codes of law. Hence, it is a universal law that is found in all religions, as discussed in the exposition of verses .
…and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided: What is meant by giving authority to his heir is that he is given legal authority to kill the murderer in retaliation. Being aided also refers to this legal authority. The pronouns “him” in “let him not exceed” and “he” in “surely he is aided” refer to the heir.
The implied meaning is: Whoever is slain unjustly, We have given legal authority to his heir—who is a guardian (walī) over his blood—to either retaliate, take blood-money, or pardon. Thus the heir should not exceed in slaying by either slaying someone other than the murderer, or slaying more than one person. He should not exceed in slaying because he is aided, so he will not miss the murderer. Or alternatively, being [legally] aided by Us should not cause him to exceed in slaying.
Some exegetes have said that perhaps the pronoun “him” in “let him not exceed” refers to the murderer, implied by the context, and the pronoun “he” in “he is aided” refers to “whoever is slain.” The implied meaning would then be: Since We have given authority to the heir of one who is slain unjustly, one should not exceed the just limits in the first place by killing someone unjustly, because whoever is slain unjustly is aided by Us through the authority that We have given to his heir. This meaning is unlikely given the context and flow of the verse, especially as it refers the pronoun “he” [in “he is aided”] to “whoever is slain.”
A discussion of retaliation (qiṣāṣ) was presented under verse (And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation) in volume 1 [volume 2 of the English translation].
وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا۟ مَالَ ٱلْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِٱلَّتِى هِىَ أَحْسَنُ حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُۥ ۚ وَأَوْفُوا۟ بِٱلْعَهْدِ ۖ إِنَّ ٱلْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْـُٔولًا ٣٤
(17:34) And draw not near to the property of the orphan except in a goodly way till he attains his maturity and fulfill the promise; surely (every) promise shall be questioned [about].
This verse forbids devouring the property of the orphans, which is a major sin that God has threatened by fire: (As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies and they shall enter burning fire (). Commanding against [even] drawing near something is a way of emphasizing the prohibition. “Except in a goodly way” means in a manner that is best and is constructive to the growth of their property. “Till he attains his maturity” means the time of reaching puberty and becoming an adult, whereby the title “orphan” does not apply to the person anymore. Saying “till he attains his maturity” shows that what is meant by the prohibition (draw not near to the property of the orphan) is a command to protect and preserve their property. It is as if the verse is saying: Preserve their property until they mature and then return it to them. In other words, the verse is effectively saying: Do not approach the property of the orphan as long as he is an orphan. Some relevant discussions on this topic were presented under verse .
…and fulfill the promise; surely (every) promise shall be questioned [about]: What is meant by being questioned is being questioned about, where “about” has been omitted as an instance of common omission [of something that is understood] in speech. Some have said that what is meant is that promise will actually be questioned itself, because it is possible that the actions will be embodied on the Day of Resurrection and they testify for or against people, intercede for them or oppose them.
وَأَوْفُوا۟ ٱلْكَيْلَ إِذَا كِلْتُمْ وَزِنُوا۟ بِٱلْقِسْطَاسِ ٱلْمُسْتَقِيمِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا ٣٥
(17:35) And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance (qisṭās); this is fair and better in the end.
Qisṭās means scale. Some have said that it is an Arabicized Roman term. Others have said that the term is originally Arabic. It has been said that the root of the word is composed of qisṭ, meaning justice, and ṭās, meaning the pan of a scale. “A true balance” is a scale that is just and does not underestimate the weights.
…this is fair (khayr) and better in the end (taʾwīlan): Khayr is that which one would choose (yakhtāruhu) when confronted with a decision to choose between it and something else. Taʾwīl is the end result upon which an affair settles. Giving full measure and weighing with a true balance are khayr (fair and good, or fairer and better) because they prevent one from stealing and robbing the people’s property while they are unaware, and they also attract the people’s trust.
They are also better in the end because they empower people to lead their economic lives on the basis of integrity and rectitude. People’s economic lives depend on enjoying commodities based on two principles: 1. obtaining proper and useful commodities; and 2. exchanging what is beyond one’s need for what one needs. People manage their lives according to how much they can spend in terms of money or goods, and how much of other goods they need to purchase. Now, if they incur a loss due to fraud, improper measure or unjust balance, it damages both aspects of their lives, and trust and security will fade away among them.
On the other hand, if they observe just measures, they will live in rectitude and their economic conditions will improve because their calculations of their livelihoods will be correct. Furthermore, this will develop trust between the people and the merchants and a sense of security will prevail among them.
وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِۦ عِلْمٌ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلسَّمْعَ وَٱلْبَصَرَ وَٱلْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْـُٔولًا ٣٦
(17:36) And follow not (lā taqfu) that of which you have not any knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
Taqfu is from the root qafā yaqfū, which means to follow. The rhyme of a poem is called qāfiya—from the same root—because it is at the end of the line, following what was before it. The word has also been recited as taquf, from the root qāfa, which has the same meaning as qāfa (to follow). It has been narrated from some lexicologists that qāfa has been altered from qafā, just as jabadha is an altered form of jadhaba (lit. “to absorb”). Qiyāfa is from this root and it means tracing and following the footprints of something.
The verse forbids one from following what one does know. Given the unconditional form of the verse it includes every form of such following, whether in beliefs or practice. It effectively includes all of the following: Do not believe that of which you have not any knowledge; do not say that of which you have not any knowledge; do not do that of which you have not any knowledge—because all of these involve a form of adherence.
This confirms the command of our primordial human nature (fiṭra) that one must follow knowledge and should not follow anything else. Mankind, based on his innate nature and makeup, wants his beliefs and actions in life to be according to the reality and hit the fact of the matter as is. This is the case of things that one has knowledge of (sing. maʿlūm), but it does not apply to things that one doubts or suspects. Contemplate this!
A human with a sound fiṭra follows, in terms of his beliefs, what he finds to be true and actual in the external world and follows, in terms of his actions, what he deems to be right. This is the rule of human nature concerning things that one can have knowledge of. As with things that one cannot easily have knowledge of—such as the details of religious beliefs for some people, and most religious injunctions for most of the people—then the rule of human nature is that one should follow the knowledge of one who is knowledgeable and an expert of it. But this act of following is because of the follower’s knowledge that the person has the right knowledge and expertise. Hence, it reduces again to following one’s knowledge, which in this case is knowledge of someone else’s knowledge and expertise. This is like a traveler who does not know the directions resorting to a guide—based on the traveler’s knowledge that the guide has the knowledge and information. Likewise is the case of a patient who refers to a doctor and anyone else who refers to a specialist or technician to take care of his specific need.
Based on the above, one never fails to follow knowledge throughout his life, for one’s innate nature dictates so. Except that sometimes one assumes things that satisfy his soul and pacify his heart to be knowledge, even though they are devoid of the certainty that is called knowledge as in the technique of demonstration (burhān) in logic.
It follows that in any matter that one encounters, he either has knowledge of that matter himself, or he has a knowledge-based proof to know what he must do with regard to it. This is what the statement “follow not that of which you have not any knowledge” should be interpreted as. Hence, in cases when one’s knowledge-based proof commands him to follow a speculation that is also a following of knowledge just like any other case of following knowledge.
The verse is effectively saying: In cases where one can acquire knowledge about, it is forbidden to jump into adopting a belief or practice except after acquiring that knowledge. And in cases where one cannot acquire knowledge about, it is forbidden to jump into adopting a belief or practice unless one has knowledge to a proof that justifies that belief or action. The latter would be like accepting and following the religious laws that the prophet gives, and obeying him in what he commands or prohibits on behalf of his Lord. Likewise is the case of a patient who takes what a doctor prescribes, and the case of any other skill and speciality. Knowledge to the infallibility of a prophet is binding proof that what he informs complies with the facts, and his commands and prohibitions conform to the reality. It is binding proof that one must follow these injunctions in order to hit the truth. Likewise, knowledge to the specialty of a doctor and the expertise of an expert is binding proof that one who refers to them is doing the right thing.
So the verse is saying that what one does in practice should ultimately boil down to some knowledge and proof. If we say that the verse only sanctions following that of which one has direct knowledge, then it would negate itself to begin with. The reason is that we understand what the verse is saying through the apparent meaning of the text. But the apparent meaning of a text is only presumptive evidence. However, is it a binding proof that is based on knowledge: The established practice of rational individuals that take the apparent meaning of a text as a proof. If this rational rule is to be considered as that of which you have not any knowledge, then following the apparent meaning of a text—including the apparent meaning of this very verse—would have to be forbidden. Thus, the verse would be commanding against following itself, which means that it would contradict itself.
This should answer the question that some exegetes have raised. For example, Rāzī says in his Tafsīr that following speculation is very common in the branches of religion [that is, laws and rituals]. Excepting these from the universal sense of the verse reduces the verse to a rule that is presumptive itself [in terms of its applications]. So if the verse is saying that one cannot follow things that are presumptive, then it would be commanding against following itself. If the verse were to be a binding proof for this, then it would be negating itself, which is not acceptable.
The problem with this view is that the verse undoubtedly prohibits following anything other than certain knowledge. However, we have binding proof based on knowledge for cases where one must act according to presumptive evidence. Hence, such action is in fact following those binding proofs, which means that the verse retains its universality without any exception. Under this premise, [what was considered as] acting on the basis of a specific application of the universal rule [, as if by exception,] in some cases is actually not an exception to the rule at all because it is sourced in binding rational proof [that is grounded in knowledge]. This is equivalent to acting on the basis of applying a universal rule that has not been excepted.
Similarly problematic is believing that one understands what the verse is saying only through its apparent meaning [that is, to the apparent universal meaning of the verse]. So if the real meaning of the verse is that it is forbidden to follow anything other than certain knowledge, then the verse would be forbidding the acceptance of its own apparent meaning, and this entails the prohibition of acting according to this very verse.
The answers to this objection, as we already said above, is that following the apparent meaning of a text is a binding proof, as agreed upon by rational individuals. Therefore it should not be considered as an instance of following that of which one does not have certain knowledge.
…surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all (kullu) of these (ūlāʾika), shall be questioned about that (ʿanhu): This is a justification for the prohibition at the beginning of the verse where it says: And follow not that of which you have not any knowledge.
What primarily comes to mind is that the “these” and “that” [in all of these, shall be questioned about that] refer to “all.” Therefore, as al-Zamakhsharī has said in al-Kashshāf, “about that” is the subject of “shall be questioned” or a replacing clause for the subject. Ūlāʾika (lit. “these”) is a demonstrative that is used for intelligible beings. Here it refers to “the hearing and the sight and the heart.” They are referred to by such a demonstrative because the verse is talking about their being questioned, which is a feature of intelligible beings. The likes of such usage are frequent in the Book of God.
Some exegetes have denied that ūlāʾika is exclusively used for intelligible beings and they have drawn on the following line of Jarīr:
The stops after Lawā were never okay; And life was bitter after those (ūlāʾika) days.
At any rate, one’s very hearing, sight and heart will be literally questioned each, and they will testify for or against the person as God says: Their hands shall speak to Us, and their feet shall bear witness of what they earned ().
Some exegetes have favored the view that while “that” (ʿanhu) refers to “all” (kullu) [that is, to hearing, sight and heart], the rest of the pronouns refer to the person who follows that of which he has not any knowledge. Hence, it is the person who will be questioned about his hearing, sight and heart, as how and in what way he used them. The problem with this interpretation is that the verse involves a shift from the second person [at the beginning] to the third person [at the end]. If this meaning were to be true, then the verse should have said: “You shall be questioned about that.” Not to mention that it is an unlikely possibility.
The implied meaning is: Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge, because surely God will soon ask one’s hearing, sight and heart—which are the instruments that one uses to acquire knowledge. The effective meaning implied by this justification based on the context is: The hearing, the sight and the heart are God’s blessings upon mankind so that they may identify and acquire the truth, so that they may believe in it and act according to it. Each of them will soon be asked whether or not it was used to acquire knowledge, and whether or not the person followed the knowledge acquired by that instrument.
The hearing will be asked: Did you pursue sure and definitive knowledge in your hearing? The sight will be asked: Did you pursue what is evident and patent in your seeing? The heart will be asked: Did you pursue what is certain and doubtless in your thinking and judgment? And of course they will surely tell the truth and testify according to the fact of the matter. Thus, it is incumbent upon one to avoid following what he has no knowledge of, because his organs that were his instruments of acquisition of knowledge will certainly be asked. They will testify against him about what he did based on some uncertain knowledge that he acquired through them, and that point no excuse will be accepted.
This effectively reduces to the following: Do not follow that of which you have not any knowledge, for it will be recorded against you in your hearing, your sight and your heart, and God will certainly ask them about your course of action. Hence, the verse is equivalent to verses about the testimony of body parts such as the following: Until when they come to it, their ears and their eyes and their skins shall bear witness against them as to what they did… And you did not veil yourselves lest your ears and your eyes and your skins should bear witness against you, but you thought that Allah did not know most of what you did. And that was your (evil) thought which you entertained about your Lord that has tumbled you down into perdition, so are you become of the lost ones ().
The difference is that this verse also includes the heart as one of the witnesses over the person. The heart [in the Qur’an] means the faculty of understanding and comprehension. This is one of the most astounding points that is deduced from the verses about the Resurrection: That God will raise the human soul and question it about what it understood, whereby the very soul of a person will testify against him.
It is thus clear that the verse forbids adopting anything out of ignorance, whether that is believing something that one does not know to be correct, or doing something that one does not know to be permissible and desirable, or acting on a matter that is not known for sure. Then the subsequent part of the verse justifies this prohibition by saying that He will question the hearing, the sight and the heart. There is no problem in the reason being more general than what it has justified in this verse, for the questioning of organs also applies to cases where one does an action despite knowing for sure that it is impermissible. He says: On that day We will set a seal upon their mouths, and their hands shall speak to Us, and their feet shall bear witness… ().
Concerning the first part of the verse (And follow not that of which you have not any knowledge) Majmaʿ al-bayān says:
It means: Do not say, “I heard” while you have not heard; do not say, “I saw” while you have not seen; and do not say, “I know” while you do not know. This is how Ibn ʿAbbās and Qatādah have interpreted it.
It has also been said that it means: Do not backbite others. That is, when one is not present with you, do not backbite him. This is how al-Ḥasan has interpreted it.
It has also been said: It is about false witness. This is how Muḥammad b. Ḥanafiyyah has interpreted it. The truth is that the verse is universal and it includes every speech, act or decision that is not based on knowledge. It is as if God is saying: Do not say that which you do not know to be permissible to say; do not do that which you do not know to be permissible to do; and do not believe that which you do not know to be permissible to believe.
The problem with this is that it is more general than what the verse is saying. The verse is saying, “Do not follow if you do not have knowledge [to the admissibility of something]”; it is not saying, “Do not follow unless you have knowledge [to the admissibility of something].” The latter is more inclusive than the former. What the former is saying is: “If you are ignorant about a belief or action, then do not pursue it.” The latter includes this, but it also includes cases when one has knowledge to the impermissibility of something.
As with the interpretations that he has narrated [from Ibn ʿAbbās and others], it is more befitting to consider them as applications and examples for the justification part [at the end of the verse] instead of interpretations for the first part of the verse.
وَلَا تَمْشِ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا ۖ إِنَّكَ لَن تَخْرِقَ ٱلْأَرْضَ وَلَن تَبْلُغَ ٱلْجِبَالَ طُولًا ٣٧
(17:37) And do not walk in the land exultingly (maraḥan), for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height.
Maraḥ has been defined as intense and invalid joy. Perhaps its qualification as invalid (bāṭil) is because of its transgression of balanced limits. Valid joy is when one is cheerful with a blessing of God, grateful for it, and observant of balanced limits. If the person’s joy intensifies to the point that it weakens his intellect and its signs appear in his actions, speech, standing, sitting and particularly in his walking, then it is an invalid and wrongful joy.
And do not go about (lā tamshi) in the land exultingly…: This forbids one from having a higher regard for himself than what he really is, due to vainglory, insolence, pride and conceit. The verse specifically talks about “walking” (lā tamshi) because this sense of pride has a special manifestation in the way one walks about.
…for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height: This is a metaphorical expression. It is saying that your arrogant behavior, by which you wish to show your power, authority and greatness, is only an illusion in your imagination. Otherwise, there is the earth which is stronger than you and which is not cut by your steps, and there are the mountains which are taller than you. So admit this fact that you are a low and abject being. And so is the case of everything that mankind seek and cherish in this world, including property, honor, dominion, power, supremacy, wealth, and so on: they are all illusive matters without any reality beyond the human mind. However, God has formed our souls in a way that we recognize these [illusory] matters and set them as basis in our activities so that this world may be built and God’s decree may be fulfilled. Had it not been for these illusions, mankind could not live in this world, and God’s will would not be fulfilled, where He said: There is for you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time ().
كُلُّ ذَٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُۥ عِندَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا ٣٨
(17:38) All this—the evil of it (sayyiʾuhu)—is hateful in the sight of your Lord.
As the exegetes have said, this verse refers to all of the preceding commands and prohibitions, which are also the object of reference for the pronoun “it” (in the evil of it). The implied meaning is: The evil things— that is, things that are forbidden—among all that was mentioned above are hateful in the sight of your Lord, meaning that God is not pleased with them and does not approve of them.
An uncommon recitation reads sayyiʾatan (instead of sayyiʾuhu) as the predicate of the verb “is” in the verse. The meaning in this case is clear.
ذَٰلِكَ مِمَّآ أَوْحَىٰٓ إِلَيْكَ رَبُّكَ مِنَ ٱلْحِكْمَةِ ۗ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ ٱللَّهِ إِلَـٰهًا ءَاخَرَ فَتُلْقَىٰ فِى جَهَنَّمَ مَلُومًا مَّدْحُورًا ٣٩
(17:39) This is of what your Lord has revealed to you of wisdom, and do not associate any other god with Allah lest you should be thrown into hell, blamed, cast away.
“This” refers to all the detailed prescriptions above. The verse involves applying the word “wisdom” for legal injunctions (which are the branches of religion). Their description as wisdom could be on the account of their expediencies, which can be inferred from the above verses in brief.
…and do not associate any other god with Allah lest you should be thrown into hell, blamed, cast away: Here again God forbids associating others with Him even though He already did so above. This repetition is to show the significance of monotheism and the importance of this order. It also serves as a bond that links the beginning of the discussion with its end. The meaning of the verse is clear.
Examining Narrations
(1) In a narration where Imam al-Riḍā discusses jabr (determinism, compulsion), tafwīḍ (entrustment, delegation) and al-amr bayn al-amrayn (the intermediate position between the two), the narrator says: I asked him, “Does God have any will and wish with regards to that; that is, with regards to the acts of a servant?” He said: “As with acts of obedience, God’s will and wish is that He commands them, is pleased with them, and helps their doers. But as with acts of disobedience, He forbids them, is displeased with them, and leaves their doers on their own…”
(2) Imam al-Ṣādiq was once asked about God’s words, “And goodness to your parents” (). He said: Doing good means being a good company for them and not making them [explicitly] ask you what they need, even if they are wealthy. Is it not that God says: By no means shall you attain to righteousness until you spend (benevolently) out of what you love ()?
The Imam continued: As with His words, “If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (so much as) Ugh” (), you should not say to them [even] “ugh” they frustrate you, and you should not chide them [even] if they beat you. “And speak to them a gracious word” (): It is to tell them, “God bless you!” This is what “gracious word” means.
The Imam then recited : “And make yourself submissively gentle to them with compassion” (): Do not fix your eyes on them except by compassion and geniality. Do not raise your voice above theirs, nor raise your hand above theirs, and do not walk in front of them.
Author’s comment: Kulaynī has also narrated this in al-Kāfī, via his chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Wallād al-Ḥannāṭ, from Imam al-Ṣādiq.
(3) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: The lowest stage of filial undutifulness (uqūq) [toward one’s parents] is [to say] “ugh.” Had God known something subtler than it, He would have forbidden that.
Author’s comment: Al-Kāfī has narrated this via another chain of narration as well. Narrations to this effect have also been reported in al-Kāfī: via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū al-Bilād, from Imam al-Ṣādiq; in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ḥarīz, from Imam al-Ṣādiq; and in Ṭabrisī’s Majmaʿ al-bayān, from Imam al-Riḍā, from his father, from Imam al-Ṣādiq.
There are countless narrations reported by Sunnis and Shias from the Prophet and the Imams saying that it is obligatory to do good to one’s parents and forbidden to be undutiful to them, whether they are alive or dead.
(4) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Awwāb [“those who turn (to Him) frequently” in ] means one who repents, worships and ceases to sin.
(5) Imam al-Ṣādiq told Abū Baṣīr: “O Abā Muḥammad, incumbent upon you is abstinence [from God’s disobedience], diligence [in His obedience], fulfilment of the trust, honesty of speech, keeping good company of anyone who accompanies you, and prolongation of prostration. These have been the customs of those who repent and return (al-tawwābīn al-awwābīn).” Abū Baṣīr then said: “‘Those who turn (to Him) frequently’ (awwābūn) means ‘those who repent frequently’ (tawwābūn).”
Author’s comment: Concerning this verse (), it has also been narrated from Abū Baṣīr, from Imam al-Ṣādiq, that “those who turn (to Him) frequently” are those who repent frequently and are constantly in worship.
(6) ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib said : “When the shadows disappear and the souls take a rest, then take your needs to God, for that is the hour of awwābīn.” He then recited: Then He is surely Forgiving to those who turn (to Him) frequently ().
(7) ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn told a man from Syria, “Have you read the Qur’an?” “Of course,” he said. The Imam asked him, “Have you not read in [Chapter] Banī Isrāʾīl: And give to the near of kin his due []?” The man said, “Are you the near of kin that God has ordered to be given their due?” The Imam said, “Indeed.”
Author’s comment: Tafsīr al-burhān has also narrated this, on the authority of Ṣadūq, via his chain of narration, from the Imam, and also on the authority of Thaʿlabī’s Tafsīr, on the authority of al-Suddī, on the authority of Ibn al-Daylamī, from the Imam.
(8) ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Ḥajjāj said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about His words: And do not squander wastefully (). He said: If one spends anything not in the way of God’s obedience, then he is a squanderer; and if one spends in the way of good, then he is moderate spender(muqtaṣid).
(9) Concerning the same verse (do not squander wastefully; ), Imam al-Ṣādiq said to Abū Baṣīr: It is about a person who gives away all of his wealth and then sits hapless without any finances. ʿAbū Baṣīr asked: “So there can be squander in lawful expenditures?” The Imam replied: “Yes.”
(10) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Maḥsūr [“stripped off” in ] means naked.
(11) ʿAjlān said: I was with Imam al-Ṣādiq when a beggar came to him. The Imam took a handful from a basket of dates there and gave it to him. Then another beggar came and the Imam did the same thing. Then a third one came but the Imam told him, “May God provide for us and for you.”
The Imam then said [to me]: “The Messenger of God was such that if anyone asked him for anything of this world he would grant his request. One day a lady sent her son to him saying, ‘Go and ask him [for some help]. If he says that “we have nothing here” then tell him: Give me your shirt!’ So the Prophet took off his shirt and threw it toward him [from behind the door].” In another narration the Imam said: “He gave him his shirt.” The Imam continued: “God then corrected him by ordering him to moderation, where He said: And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth, lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off (maḥsūran, from iḥsār) (), where iḥsār means need.”
Author’s comment: ʿAyyāshī has also narrated this in his Tafsīr. The story has also been narrated in Tafsīr al-Qummī; also in al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, on the authority of al-Minhāl b. ʿAmr, and on the authority of Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd.
(12) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: [In this verse] God is teaching His prophet how to give charity. The story is that he had an awqiyyah of gold with him and he did not want to sleep with it in his hand, so he gave it in charity. Thus he did not have anything the next morning to give to a beggar that came asking for help. The beggar reproached him for this, and the Prophet was grieved because of not having anything, for indeed he was very compassionate and gracious. Thus God corrected His prophet by His command: And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth, lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off (). He is saying that sometimes people ask you for help and they do not accept any excuse. So if you were to give away all of the money that you have then you would be stripped of money.
(13) Imam al-Ṣādiq held his fist tight and said: “This is what is meant by And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck ().” He then opened up his palm and said: “This is what is meant by nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth ().”
(14) Isḥāq b. ʿAmmār said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “What does imlāq [in ] mean?” He said, “It means iflās (insolvency).”
(15) Concerning verse (And go not nigh to adultery; surely it is an indecency) the Messenger of God said: “A servant does not fornicate while being a believer, does not slander while being a believer, does not steal while being a believer, does not drink wine while being a believer, and does not breach [a contract or trust] while being a believer.” He was asked, “O Messenger of God! By God we used to think that it is possible for one to commit these things and be a believer.” The Messenger of God replied, “When he does any of these things, faith exits his heart. Then if he repents, God will return to Him [with forgiveness].”
Author’s comment: This hadith has also been narrated via other chains on the authority of ʿĀʾishah and Abū Hurayrah. In the narrations of Ahl al-Bayt it says that the spirit of faith will depart him upon committing these acts.
(16) Isḥāq b. ʿAmmār said: I told Abū al-Ḥasan [that is, Imam al-Kāẓim], “Indeed God says in His Book: And whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided (). What is this ‘exceeding’ that God has prohibited here?” He said: “He has prohibited killing anyone other than the murderer, as well as mutilating the murderer (muthlah).” I asked, “And what does it mean that surely he is aided?” He replied, “Is there a bigger aid than handing the murderer to the victim’s heirs [that is, his family] so that they may kill him, without any consequence for this killing in the religion or in this world.”
(17) Abū al-ʿAbbās said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about two men that kill one man. He said: “His heir has the choice to kill either of the two murderers, whereby the other one would owe half of his blood money—I mean half of the killed murderer’s blood money— to his children. Likewise, if a man kills a woman and her heirs agree to take the blood money of a woman from him, then that is settled. But if they insist on killing the murderer, then they can do so but they will owe [his family] half of a man’s blood money. This is what God says: We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying ().
Author’s comment: There are other narrations to the effect of the last two narrations.
(18) Zayd b. Aslam said: In the pre-Islamic era “Age of Ignorance” (al-jāhilyyah), when a man of a tribe was killed by someone, his tribe would not be appeased unless they killed a man of nobility from the other tribe. So if the murderer was not a nobleman, they would kill someone else instead of him. Thus they were admonished by God: And do not kill… so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying ().
(19) Concerning verse (weigh with a true balance) Imam al-Bāqir said: A true balance (al-qisṭās al-mustaqīm) is a scale with an indicator (lit. tongue).
Author’s comment: The Imam has mentioned the indicator to indicate justness, because scales with two pans [and tongues] are like this.
(20) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Indeed God has made faith obligatory on the organs of the children of Adam. He has divided it over them such that each organ has been assigned a share of faith that is different than that of the other organs. These include the two eyes by which one sees, and the two legs by which one walks.
He has made it obligatory on the eye to not look on what God has made unlawful for the person, but to lower its gaze from what God has prohibited for it. This is the action of the eye and it is a part of faith. God says: And follow not that of which you have not any knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that (). This is what has been made obligatory in terms of lowering the gaze from what God has made unlawful. This is the action of the eye and it is a part of faith.
He has made it obligatory on the legs to not walk toward any act of disobedience of God, but to walk toward what God has made obligatory. He says: And do not walk in the land exultingly, for you cannot cut through the earth nor reach the mountains in height (), and: And pursue the right course in your going about and lower your voice; surely the most hateful of voices is braying of the asses ().
Author’s comment: This is also reported in al-Kāfī as a part of a lengthy tradition, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū ʿAmr al-Zubayrī, from Imam al-Ṣādiq.
(21) Abū Jaʿfar said: I was once with Imam al-Ṣādiq when a man told him, “May my parents be sacrificed for you! I have some neighbors that have maids that sing and play lute (ʿūd). Sometimes when I go to the washroom [at the other side of my yard] I keep sitting there for longer to listen to them.” The Imam said, “Do not do this.” The man said, “By God I do not go to them; it is only that my ears hear them.” The Imam told him, “Have you not heard God saying: Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that []?” He replied, “You are right! By God, it is as if I had not heard this verse of God’s Book so far, neither from an Arab nor from a non-Arab. I will certainly not do this again, by the will of God, and indeed I ask God for forgiveness.” The Imam said, “Now get up, take a bath (ghusl), and perform [as many] prayers as you can, for indeed you had a terrible habit. How bad would it have been were you to die at that state. Give thanks to God and ask Him forgiveness for all that He dislikes, because indeed He does not dislike except that which is evil. Leave the evil for its people, for indeed every act has its own people.”
Author’s comment: Shaykh [al-Ṭūsī] has narrated this in al-Tahdhīb from the Imam, and al-Kulaynī has narrated it in al-Kāfī, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ziyād, from the Imam.
(22) Concerning verse (surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: The hearing [or the ear] will be asked about what it heard; the sight [or the eye] will be asked about what it saw; and the heart will be asked about what it believed.
(23) Concerning verse (And follow not that of which you have not any knowledge) one of the Infallibles said: Do not accuse anyone by what you have no knowledge of. The Messenger of God said, “One who accuses a [chaste] believing man or woman will be held in ṭīnat khabāl until he is acquitted of what he has said.”
Author’s comment: According to a narration in al-Kāfī, on the authority of Ibn Abī Yaʿfūr, Imam al-Ṣādiq defined ṭīnat khabāl as pus exiting the private parts of unchaste women. A similar interpretation has also been narrated in Sunni sources from the Prophet, on the authority of Abū Dharr and Anas.
As you can see, some of the above narrations relate to the specific case mentioned in a verse, while others relate to the general reasoning and justification behind the verse, as we discussed above.
A negation and exception means that the verse is in the indicative mood: It is informing the audience about what God has decreed legislatively. Turning the subsequent part to an infinitive means that God has decreed the act of not serving anything but Him… A prohibition and exception means that the verse is in the imperative mood: It is ordering the audience what to do or what not to do. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses , , , . (Trans.) ↩︎
There is only verse that also talks about the same issue as the current verse, and with very similar wording. (Trans.) ↩︎
Rāzī’s point here is that the verse cannot be ruling out the following of presumptive and speculative evidence because this very interpretation of the verse is presumptive and speculative itself. (Trans.) ↩︎
In other words, having exceptions does not render the verse presumptive—and thus useless—with regard to its applications, unlike what Rāzī has claimed. (Trans.) ↩︎
In support of the author’s view, the verse literally says: And follow not that of which you have not any knowledge. ʿIlmun is in the indefinite form, which means any knowledge. Therefore, the verse is saying: Do not follow things of which you have no knowledge whatsoever, but it does not prohibit following matters of which one has some knowledge. (Trans.) ↩︎
It literally says, “Do not speak behind others,” where the word for behind is qafā, from the same root as lā taqfu: do not follow. In other words: Do not trail behind the people, talking about them in their absence. (Trans.) ↩︎
Of course this should also be avoided, but the point is that this extra prohibition cannot be deduced from the verse, even though it is a valid prohibition in its own right. (Trans.) ↩︎
The meaning in this case is: All of the above are evil (sayyiʾatan) and hateful in the sight of your Lord. (Trans.) ↩︎
See verses 22-23 above. (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Iḥtijāj, on the authority of Burayd b. ʿUmayr b. Muʿāwiyah al-Shāmī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Abū Wallād al-Ḥannāṭ. ↩︎
“Had God known” is a way of emphasizing the non-existence of something, for God knows everything. In other words, it means “Had there been” (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ḥadīd b. Ḥakīm. ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-bayān. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
The text says, mālat al-afyāʾ (“when the shadows incline”) but in some narrations it says, zālat al-afyāʾ (“when the shadows disappear”). Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, 90:348. Given the subsequent part (“the souls take a rest”) the hadith is talking about the noon time, when the shadows of objects are minimized and when many people used to rest in those lands with extreme heat at noon (see ). (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Shaybah and Hannād. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Ḥarīz. ↩︎
What this hadith is saying is that it is not about the amount that is spent, but the cause. (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎
An awqiyyah is a unit of weight equivalent to seven mithqāls (around 30 grams in total). (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ṣadaqah. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Ibn Sinān ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, on the authority of Qatādah, on the authority of al-Ḥasan. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎
Male blood money is twice as much as female blood money. See . (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Bayhaqī’s al-Sunan. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of Abū al-Jārūd. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Abū ʿAmr al-Zubayrī. ↩︎
This is apparently a mistake in transcription. It should be Abū Baṣīr, as recorded by Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, . (Trans.) ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of al-Ḥusayn b. Hārūn. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī. ↩︎