Al-Tafsīr al-Qayyim - Ibn al-Qayyim - (446)

Al-Tafsīr al-QayyimIbn al-Qayyim

gives and fears Allah.”

Neither what he gives nor whom he gives it to is mentioned. Likewise, you say, “So-and-so gives, gives charity, bestows gifts, and does good.”

The Prophet ﷺ said: “O Allah, none can withhold what You give, and none can give what You withhold.”

Since the purpose here is to affirm that the Lord, glorified be He, alone gives and withholds, mentioning the recipient or his share would serve no purpose. Rather, the intended meaning is: giving and withholding belong to You, not to anyone else. You alone possess this power, with no one sharing it with You. Mentioning both objects here would therefore detract from the completeness and eloquence of the meaning.

When both objects are intended, both are mentioned, as in His words, “Indeed, We have given you al-Kawthar” (108:1). The purpose is to inform His Messenger ﷺ of al-Kawthar, which He has specially bestowed upon him. This meaning cannot be fully conveyed without mentioning both objects. The same applies to His words: “And they give food, despite their love for it, to the poor, the orphan, and the captive” (76:8).

When only one object is intended, it alone is mentioned. Thus, in His words, “And they give zakah,” the intended meaning is that they fulfil this obligation and do not neglect it. Zakah is mentioned because it is the intended focus.

Likewise, He says concerning the people of the Fire: “We were not among those who prayed, nor did we feed the poor” (74:43, 44). Here, the purpose is to speak of the person entitled to be fed: they were stingy toward him, denied him his right to food, and hardened their hearts toward him. Mentioning him is therefore the intended purpose, rather than mentioning the food.

Reflect on this method in the Quran—its mention of what is most important to the intended meaning and its omission of everything else—and it will reveal to you an aspect of its inimitability and perfect eloquence.

The verb “leave,” however, conveys none of this and does not in itself express praise. If you said, “So-and-so leaves,” it would convey no useful meaning at all, unlike saying, “He feeds,” “He gives,” “He bestows gifts,” and the like. Rather, you must mention what he leaves. Hence, one does not say, “So-and-so eats,” but one does say, “a provider of food” and “a provider of food.” Among His names, glorified be He, is the Giver.

Thus, drawing an analogy between “leave” and “give” is among the most unsound analogies.

أَعْطى وَاتَّقى ولم يذكر ما أعطى، ولا من أعطى. وتقول فلان يعطي ويتصدق ويهب ويحسن، وقال النبي ﷺ «اللهم لا مانع لما أعطيت، ولا معطى لما منعت» لما كان المقصود بهذا تفرّد الرب سبحانه بالإعطاء والمنع لم يكن لذكر المعطى ولا لحظ المعطى معنى، بل المقصود: أن حقيقة الإعطاء والمنع إليك لا إلى غيرك، بل أنت المتفرد بها، لا يشركك فيها أحد، فذكر المفعولين هنا يخلّ بتمام المعنى وبلاغته. وإذا كان المقصود ذكرهما ذكرا معا كقوله تعالى: ١٠٨: ١ إِنَّا أَعْطَيْناكَ الْكَوْثَرَ فإن المقصود إخباره لرسوله ﷺ بما خصه به وأعطاه إياه من الكوثر. ولا يتم هذا إلا بذكر المفعولين. وكذا قوله تعالى: ٧٦: ٨ وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعامَ عَلى حُبِّهِ مِسْكِيناً وَيَتِيماً وَأَسِيراً. وإذا كان المقصود أحدهما فقط اقتصر عليه. كقوله تعالى: وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكاةَ المقصود به: أنهم يفعلون هذا الواجب عليهم، ولا يهملونه. فذكره لأنه هو المقصود. وقوله ان أهل النار: ٧٤: ٤٣، ٤٤ لَمْ نَكُ مِنَ الْمُصَلِّينَ. وَلَمْ نَكُ نُطْعِمُ الْمِسْكِينَ لما كان المقصود الإخبار عن المستحق للاطعام أنهم بخلوا عنه. ومنعوه حقه من الإطعام، وقست قلوبهم عنه كان ذكره هو المقصود، دون ذكر المطعوم. وتدبر هذه الطريقة في القرآن، وذكره للأهم المقصود، وحذفه لغيره، يطلعك على باب من أبواب إعجازه وكمال فصاحته. وأما فعل الترك: فلا يشعر بشيء من هذا، ولا يمدح به. فلو قلت: فلان يترك لم يكن مفيدا فائدة أصلا، بخلاف قولك: يطعم، ويعطي، ويهب، ونحوه، بل لا بد أن تذكر ما يترك. ولهذا لا يقال: فلان يأكل، ويقال: مطعم ومطعم. ومن أسمائه سبحانه المعطى. فقياس «ترك» على «أعطى» من أفسد القياس.