al-Isrāʾ 17:26-27

Wa āti dha'l-qurbā ḥaqqahu wa'l-miskīna wa'bna'l-sabīli wa lā tubadhdhir tabdhīrā · Inna'l-mubadhdhirīna kānū ikhwāna'l-shayāṭīn, wa kāna'l-shayṭānu li-rabbihi kafūrā

"Give the kinsman his due, and the poor and the wayfarer; and do not squander in squandering. For those who squander have become the brothers of the satans; and Satan is deeply ungrateful to his Lord."

The choice of word must be recorded, and this is an observation about the structure: the verse does not say "give to him", it says "give him his due".

I give this as my own reading, and its support is the word itself: the word ḥaqq makes what is given the property of the one who receives it. The giver is thus not making a donation — he is paying a debt. And this changes the moral tone of the act of giving entirely: what is described is a giving that produces no sense of obligation.

The same structure was treated at 70/24-25 in al-Maʿārij (wa'lladhīna fī amwālihim ḥaqqun maʿlūm) and at 51/19 in al-Dhāriyāt (wa fī amwālihim ḥaqqun li'l-sāʾili wa'l-maḥrūm). In all three places the same word is used.

The root: to scatter seed. Badhr — seed. Form II (badhdhara) conveys intensity: to spend by scattering, by strewing about.

I record this as an observation about the language, and its support is the concrete sense of the root: at the core of the word lies the scattering of seed on the soil. Seed, once sown, does not stay where it is put — it scatters. And the lexicographers tie the word's note of censure not to the seed's being scattered in its place but to its being scattered at random.

Now the difference from isrāf — this is a distinction the classical sources dwell on, and I transmit it:

The widespread explanation is this, and I give it as a transmitted distinction: isrāf is exceeding the measure in a lawful place; tabdhīr is spending in the wrong place even when the amount is small. I transmit this distinction as it is commonly stated in the classical sources; not as a settled ruling of linguistics.

And at 25/67 in al-Furqān (wa'lladhīna idhā anfaqū lam yusrifū wa lam yaqturū wa kāna bayna dhālika qawāmā) both extremes were rejected together — isrāf and iqtār (stinting). I rely on that treatment throughout.

And the way the two sūras set up the measure can be compared:

The two sūras set up the same measure, but al-Isrāʾ divides it between two separate verses and gives the second by way of an image. This is an overlap between sūras that can be verified.

The construction looks harsh, and what it says must be recorded.

In Arabic the idiom "to be someone's brother" is used for sharing the same disposition. It conveys likeness, not lineage.

And the verse gives the ground immediately after: wa kāna'l-shayṭānu li-rabbihi kafūrā — "Satan is deeply ungrateful to his Lord."

I record this as my own reading, and its support is the ground itself: the common point is ingratitude. Squandering is placed in the verse not as a fault of budgeting but as a failure to know the worth of what has been given. The axis of the censure is thus not economy but recognition.

The "covering" core of the root ك-ف-ر was treated in al-Kāfirūn and in al-Muddaththir. I do not repeat it here.