وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تُنفِقُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَلِلَّهِ مِيرَٰثُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ ۚ لَا يَسْتَوِى مِنكُم مَّنْ أَنفَقَ مِن قَبْلِ ٱلْفَتْحِ وَقَٰتَلَ ۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً مِّنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنۢ بَعْدُ وَقَٰتَلُوا۟ ۚ وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ
Wa mā lakum allā tunfiqū fī sabīli'llāhi wa lillāhi mīrāthu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ; lā yastawī minkum man anfaqa min qabli'l-fatḥi wa qātal; ulāʾika aʿẓamu darajatan mina'lladhīna anfaqū min baʿdu wa qātalū; wa kullan waʿada'llāhu'l-ḥusnā; wa'llāhu bimā taʿmalūna khabīr "What is the matter with you that you do not spend in the way of God, when to God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth? Those of you who spent and fought before the conquest are not equal to those who spent and fought afterwards; their degree is greater. Yet to all God has promised the best. God is aware of what you do."
One of the longest verses in the sūra, and it does three separate things within itself: it asks a question, gives a ground, and sets up a grading. The third is especially important.
ميراث — root و-ر-ث: to receive what is left by someone. From the same root come wārith, waratha, īrāth, turāth (inheritance, cultural heritage).
The sentence is the unfolding of the word mustakhlafīn in verse 7. There it was said: that in which you have been made successors. Here it is said: the final heir of that thing is God.
And the word order is again fronted: lillāhi (to God belongs) has been brought forward, mīrāthu's-samāwāti wa'l-arḍ (the inheritance of the heavens and the earth) comes after. The emphasis: not to anyone else.
The argumentative value of the sentence is this: the economic logic of miserliness is "if I do not give it, it stays with me". The verse demolishes the premise of that logic — it will not stay with you. What withholding secures is not keeping but only a change in the manner of its leaving.
This argument is built elsewhere in the Qurʾān as well: "In the end We shall inherit the earth and all who are upon it" (Maryam 19/40).
There is a simple observation that ties this to the present, and it is not forced: no fortune goes with its owner. This is not a religious claim but an observable fact. What the verse does is to make this fact a ground for giving.
The verb يستوي is typically used in the Qurʾān where comparisons are made: "The blind and the seeing are not equal" (Fāṭir 35/19), "Are those who know equal to those who do not know?" (al-Zumar 39/9).
The difference in the use here is this: the two groups compared are people who have done the same act. In the comparison of the blind and the seeing there are two different conditions; here what both sides have done is the same — spending and fighting.
فتح — root ف-ت-ح: to open. From the same root come miftāḥ (a key), fattāḥ, istiftāḥ. The word's sense of "victory" comes from the metaphor of "opening the door": a place that was closed has been opened.
| View | Which event | Ground |
|---|---|---|
| Al-Ḥudaybiya | The treaty of al-Ḥudaybiya | The Qurʾān uses the word fatḥ of al-Ḥudaybiya at the head of Sūrat al-Fatḥ: "We have granted you a manifest conquest" (al-Fatḥ 48/1). Moreover entry into Islam accelerated after the treaty. |
| The conquest of Mecca | The taking of Mecca | The unqualified use of the word mostly calls this to mind; and after the conquest of Mecca the risk was greatly reduced |
Both views have been defended in the classical commentaries. The sources state that the first view is the more widespread, but this is not an ijmāʿ.
In this commentary I impose no preference, because the measure the verse sets up is the same whichever event is meant: there is a threshold, and what was done before that threshold does not have the same weight as what was done after.
This is an unfamiliar measure in moral thought. The value of an act is usually measured by two things: its intention and its outcome. The verse adds a third measure: its moment.
And the logic of the measure is plain: the value of an act is proportionate to the risk it carries at that moment.
- does not know what the outcome will be
- has no sign that the property he gives will come back
- incurs a cost by taking sides
- is one of few; his contribution is relatively large
- has seen the outcome settled
- finds the cost of taking sides lowered, and it may even bring a return
- is one of many; his contribution is relatively small
From outside the two acts look the same. The same amount, the same place, the same form. But one was done in uncertainty and the other in certainty.
One consequence of this is: to join something after its rightness has become clear is not the same as joining it while its rightness is not yet clear. Both are good; but in the language of the verse there is a difference of "degree".
"The first forerunners — of the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār — and those who followed them in doing good: God is well pleased with them, and they with Him." (al-Tawba 9/100). Here too there are two groups and the order is kept: those who came first, and those who then followed in doing good. The second are praised too, but the ordering is fixed.
"And the forerunners, the forerunners." (al-Wāqiʿa 56/10). The word is as-sābiqūn, its root س-ب-ق — to get ahead in a race. The same root will come in verse 21 as a command: sābiqū.
Without this sentence the verse would have established a hierarchy and those who came later would have been left outside. The sentence prevents this: there is a difference of degree, but the promise is the same for both.
The word كلاًّ has been brought to the head of the sentence (a fronting of the object) and comes with tanwīn — here the tanwīn is counted as ʿiwaḍ (standing in place of an omitted annexed term): "to every one of them". Its being brought forward is for emphasis: to all of them without exception.
This is the sentence that establishes the balance of the verse and must be read with care. For a grading can easily turn into a claim of superiority: "we came first, you came later." The verse closes that door.
And the manner of the closing is striking too: not by denying the difference of degree, but by equalising the promise. The difference is real but not exclusionary.
One. To join a view, a cause or a person after their rightness has become plain is common and easy. The measure the verse sets is this: such joining is not without value, but it cannot be counted equal to joining at the moment of uncertainty.
Two. The most demanding side of the measure is applying it to one's own past. When did the sentence "I supported it too" begin to be said? While there was risk, or after it had passed?
Three. The measure can also be read in reverse, and this too matters: what is risky today? The logic of the verse is a compass showing where value lies — and the compass points not to where the crowd is but to where the crowd is not yet.
Four. And the note in the last sentence must be remembered: "to all He has promised the best." This measure cannot be used to belittle those who came later. When it is so used, one is acting against the verse's own note.
The verse ends with a sentence resembling the close of the fourth verse, but the attribute has changed: there baṣīr (seeing), here khabīr.
Root: خ-ب-ر. An interesting root. A khabīr is one who knows the inner face of a thing — not its outside. From the same root come khabar (news), ikhbār, mukhbir, and خبرة (khibra): deep knowledge acquired by experience.
There is another concrete sense recorded by the lexicographers: khabara'l-arḍa — to plough the ground and turn its underside up. That is, at the centre of the root stands bringing the inside to light.
That khabīr and not baṣīr should be said at the end of this verse is exactly right. For the subject of the verse is two acts that look the same from outside. Seeing (baṣar) is not enough here; what distinguishes them is the inner face of the act — under what conditions, at what risk, at what moment it was done.