ءَامِنُوا۟ بِٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ وَأَنفِقُوا۟ مِمَّا جَعَلَكُم مُّسْتَخْلَفِينَ فِيهِ ۖ فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ مِنكُمْ وَأَنفَقُوا۟ لَهُمْ أَجْرٌ كَبِيرٌ
Āminū bi'llāhi wa rasūlih, wa anfiqū mimmā jaʿalakum mustakhlafīna fīh; fa'lladhīna āmanū minkum wa anfaqū lahum ajrun kabīr "Believe in God and His Messenger, and spend of that in which He has made you successors. For those of you who believe and spend there is a great reward."
This verse is one of the most important in the sūra — perhaps, together with verse 25, one of the two most important. For here the ground of spending is loaded onto a single word, and that word is the word that expresses the Qurʾān's understanding of ownership most plainly.
There are two commands in the sentence: believe and spend. Side by side, with the same address, joined by the same conjunction.
This joining will recur throughout the sūra. In verse 8 a question will be asked about faith; in verse 10 a question in the same pattern will be asked about spending. In verse 19 those who believe will be named, in verse 18 those who give alms. The sūra keeps building a link between faith and giving.
And this link is present across the Qurʾān generally. In the third verse of Sūrat al-Baqara, when those who guard themselves are described, three things were counted: faith in the unseen, prayer, and "spending of what We have provided them with." The same three.
- نفق (nafiqa) — for property to be used up, to run out; and for a thing to find currency, to pass as valid coin
- نفق (nafaq) — an underground tunnel, a passage. From the same root نافقاء (nāfiqāʾ): the hidden exit hole in a field-mouse's burrow
- منافق (munāfiq) — like one who comes out of a burrow with two doors; one who goes out by a door other than the one he came in by
- نفقة (nafaqa) — what is spent for maintenance
- إنفاق (infāq) — to spend, to put out
There are two groups of senses, and their relation has been debated by the lexicographers: one is "to be used up / to spend", the other "tunnel / hidden exit". The common ground is probably the idea of passage: a thing going out from one place. Property leaves the hand; the mouse leaves the burrow. This connection is reasonable but not certain; I record it as the lexicographers' interpretation.
What is striking is this: infāq and munāfiq are from the same root. And this sūra is the sūra that uses both — anfiqū in verse 7, al-munāfiqūn in verse 13. In the verbal texture of the sūra this does not look like a coincidence, but I draw no semantic conclusion from it; it is ordinary in Arabic for words from the same root to move apart in meaning.
The difference between infāq and zakāt must be recorded. Zakāt is an obligation tied to a fixed proportion, to particular kinds of property and to particular channels of disbursement. Infāq is a general word: it covers every kind of spending. In this verse it is not zakāt but infāq that is said; that is, the demand is not reduced to the obligatory proportion.
This is a detail that must not be missed. The verse does not say "spend what is in your hand"; it says "of some of what is in your hand". The Qurʾān bounds the demand for spending with this particle, and it is a pattern repeated in many places: mimmā razaqnāhum (al-Baqara 2/3), mimmā razaqnākum (al-Baqara 2/254), mimmā tuḥibbūn (Āl ʿImrān 3/92).
That is, the sūra is not making a call to dispossession. The demand is bounded, and the bound is set by the language itself.
This is also consistent with the question of monasticism to be taken up in verse 27 of the sūra: the Qurʾān asks not for a complete withdrawal from the world but for giving out of what is in one's hand.
Root: خ-ل-ف. The full analysis of this root was made at al-Baqara 2/30: to come after, to take someone's place following him. From the same root khalaf, khilāfa, ikhtilāf. And the two readings of the word — deputy and successor — were given there in a table. I do not repeat them here.
1. خلف (khalafa) — he came after 2. استخلف (istakhlafa) — he made someone his successor, left him in his place. The istifʿāl form here has the sense "to bring someone into that state". 3. مستخلَف (mustakhlaf) — the passive participle: one who has been made a successor, one who has been put in another's place. Passive.
The verse does not say "of that in which He made you successors" — that too is a correct rendering, but it misses the emphasis — it says, more exactly, "of that in which you have been made successors." You are not the subject of the verb. You were brought into that position.
- The real owner — not named, but He is the subject of the sentence (jaʿalakum — He made you)
- The deputy / successor — you
- The trust — the property
And the particle فيه (in it, within it) is meaningful too. Not "you were made successors of it" but "within it" you were made successors. That is, the property is not the object of the succession but its field. The domain within which you exercise authority.
The word has two readings, and both are present in the classical sources. Both come out at the same place, but by different routes:
| Reading | In whose place the successor stands | What the property becomes |
|---|---|---|
| In God's place (deputyship) | The human being disposes in God's dominion on His behalf | A trust: the owner is another, the user is you |
| In the place of those before (succession) | The human being is the successor of those who held the same property before him | Something handed on: it came to you, and it will pass from you |
At al-Baqara 2/30 it was noted that some scholars have entered a reservation about the first reading, and that their ground is sound: a deputy stands where the principal is absent.
But in this verse the second reading is also strong, and this needs emphasising. For the second reading agrees with something said plainly only three verses later (57/10):
وَلِلَّهِ مِيرَٰثُ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ "To God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth."
The word inheritance is the direct counterpart of the "successor" reading. Inheritance is what passes from one to another. And the verse says where all inheritance finally returns.
That is, the concept the sūra sets up in verse 7 it repeats with another word in verse 10. Read together, the two yield this: the property in your hand belonged to someone else before you; it will belong to someone else after you; and the whole chain belongs to God. What falls to your share is to hold it in your hand for a while, at one link of the chain.
At al-Baqara 2/29 this measure was set down, and it attaches exactly here:
There this measure was drawn from two verses standing side by side: 2/29 says "whatever is on the earth is for you", 2/30 calls the human being a "successor". A deputy has no property of his own; he has an account to render.
Al-Ḥadīd 57/7 is the plainest single-sentence expression of that measure in the Qurʾān. For two things come together here:
One. In al-Baqara the measure was drawn from two separate verses. Here it is gathered into a single verse, into a single word: mustakhlafīn.
Two. In al-Baqara the practical consequence of the measure was not stated. Here it is stated: spending. That is, the finding "it is not yours" is not left as a philosophical proposition hanging in the air; it is tied directly to a behaviour.
A demand for spending can be built on two separate grounds. Both are found in religious literature and in general moral thought, but they are different things:
The first ground: generosity. "It is your property, but give. Giving is good, miserliness is bad." This accepts the ownership of the property and demands giving as a virtue.
The second ground: trust. "The property is not yours to begin with. In giving you are not giving anything of your own; you are delivering to its place something you were holding." This opens the ownership of the property to question from the outset.
| The ground of generosity | The ground of trust | |
|---|---|---|
| The position of the giver | A donor, one who bestows | One doing his duty |
| The state of the one who does not give | Lacking in virtue | Having exceeded his authority |
| The position of the receiver | Expected to be grateful | Receiving what is his by right |
| The limit of what is given | Depends on the giver's heart | Depends on the terms of the trust |
| The feeling it produces | The risk of superiority | Responsibility |
The most critical line is the third. On the ground of generosity the receiver stands in the position of a debtor; on the ground of trust he does not. And the Qurʾān says this plainly elsewhere:
"In their properties there is a known right for the one who asks and the one who is deprived." (al-Maʿārij 70/24-25). The word is right — not gift.
And the warning about conduct after giving is a continuation of the same logic: "Do not void your alms by reproach and by injury" (al-Baqara 2/264). Reproach is the natural consequence of the first ground — a person who thinks he has given of his own property expects a return for it.
The fourth line is important too. On the ground of generosity the answer to the question "how much shall I give?" is at the giver's discretion. On the ground of trust the question changes: "what were the terms of what was left with me?" This is an entirely different question, and it reduces arbitrariness.
It is possible to make this concrete with an example: a person has been handed the cash box of an institution and told to make the payments. When this person makes a payment he does not say "I have been generous"; he has done his duty. And when he does not, he does not say "I have been miserly"; he has acted against a trust. This is the difference between the two descriptions.
The Qurʾān's counting property as a trust does not abolish ownership — indeed the same Qurʾān regulates the law of inheritance, treats trade as lawful and lays down a penalty for theft. That is, legal ownership exists. What is abolished is absolute ownership: an unlimited and unaccountable right of disposal over what is in one's hand.
One. The sentence "I can do what I like with my own money" is the purest expression of the first ground and is the default assumption of modern economic thought. The verse opens the first word of that sentence to question: my own.
Two. The language of donation and philanthropy is today built largely on the first ground — the giver's name is announced, the giver is photographed, the giver is thanked. Within the frame the verse sets up this becomes odd: no ceremony is held for the person who delivers a trust to its place.
Three. That the word inheritance occurs in verse 10 carries the matter onto an intergenerational plane. The expression "that in which you have been made successors" can be read directly of natural resources as well — for they too pass from one generation to another, and no generation produced them. The link made at al-Baqara 2/29 with al-Rūm 30/41 ("corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what people's hands have earned") holds here too.
أجر — root أ-ج-ر: the return for a piece of work, a wage. The word comes from commercial and employment relations; ijāra (hiring out) and ajīr (a hired worker) are from the same root.
That is, the verse names the return with the word wage — not with the word gift or favour. This is consistent with the economic language of the sūra generally: the sūra will use the words loan (qarḍ), inheritance (mīrāth), double share (kiflayn), ransom, balance.
The adjective كبير states no measure, only greatness. In verses 11 and 18 of this same sūra the adjective كريم (karīm) will be used of the reward — that conveys not so much greatness as superiority of kind. Two different adjectives, two different emphases.