قُلْ أَنفِقُوا۟ طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا لَّن يُتَقَبَّلَ مِنكُمْ
Qul anfiqū ṭawʿan aw karhan lan yutaqabbala minkum; innakum kuntum qawman fāsiqīn · Wa mā manaʿahum an tuqbala minhum nafaqātuhum illā annahum kafarū bi'llāhi wa bi-rasūlihī wa lā yaʾtūna'l-ṣalāta illā wa hum kusālā wa lā yunfiqūna illā wa hum kārihūn · Fa-lā tuʿjibka amwāluhum wa lā awlāduhum; innamā yurīdu'llāhu li-yuʿadhdhibahum bihā fi'l-ḥayāti'l-dunyā wa tazhaqa anfusuhum wa hum kāfirūn
"Say: spend willingly or unwillingly; it will not be accepted from you. For you are a people who have gone out of the way. · What prevents their spending from being accepted from them is only that they have rejected God and His Messenger, that they come to the prayer only in listlessness, and that they spend only unwillingly. · Let their wealth and their children not draw your admiration; God wants only to punish them by these in the life of this world, and that their souls should depart while they reject."
In Arabic this structure — the form of a command plus a negative outcome — is what the lexicographers call the command of threat (amr al-tahdīd) or the command of equalisation (amr al-taswiya): it states that both options come out at the same result.
I record this as an observation: the verse accepts that both acts are performed — they do come to the prayer, they do spend. What is refused is not the act but the state in which the act is carried. Both clauses are built on the pattern illā wa hum: "only as…".
And the measure recorded in al-Munāfiqūn holds here too: "The existence of a second door does not mean that the first door is false." I rely on that treatment.
This is the second of the three occurrences of the root ع-ج-ب (25, 55, 85). It was tabulated at verse 25.
And the construction of the sentence must be recorded: the prohibition is directed at the one who looks — not at the one who owns. What is regulated, that is, is the way one looks at another's wealth.