For the poor is a substitute for His saying, 'to the relatives,' and what follows it. [[Mahamud said: 'It is a substitute for His saying, 'to the relatives' and what follows it, and that which prevented substitutions from Allah and the Messenger... etc.']] Ahmad said: 'The position of Abu Hanifa is that the entitlement of the relatives to their shares from the spoils is contingent upon the poor, so that the wealthy among them do not have a right to it. Al-Shafi'i, may Allah be pleased with him, strongly opposed this position as conveyed by Imam al-Haramayn, arguing that Allah, the Exalted, conditioned entitlement on kinship and did not stipulate need. Not considering kinship is contrary and opposing. Imam al-Haramayn excused Abu Hanifa by saying that since alms are prohibited for them, the benefit of mentioning them in the fifth of the spoils and the war booty is that it does not prevent the allocation of that to them due to the prohibition of alms. He followed this excuse by saying: 'It should not be expressed in this way, for the wording of the verse indicates the specification of entitlement for them, honoring them and alerting to their great status. Whoever interprets this as allowing allocation to them while opposing this allowance with the possibility of depriving them has nullified the essence of the verse.' Then the Imam found it significant that they hold this view because they assert the condition of faith in the case of the declaration of divorce, in addition to the text, and they come to establish that through analogy, which is not meant to be established by analogy. He said: 'So likewise, they must believe that the condition of poverty in kinship and the condition of need is close to what they mentioned for the purpose of proximity. As for those who are specifically from the lineage of the Messenger, blessings and peace be upon him, and those firmly established from his tree, like the non-Arabs, there remains no basis for their position.' This concludes the words of the Imam, and I have mentioned it so that it is known that his opposition to Abu Hanifa regarding the condition of need is based on analogy or similar reasons that are extraneous to the verse. Therefore, he was obliged to consider it an addition to the text. As for Abu Hanifa having derived the consideration of need from the restriction of this substitute mentioned in the verse, he is indeed following a different path, saying it is a substitute for the poor and nothing else.

And its explanation is that He, glorified and exalted is He, intended to describe the poor with qualities that affirm their deservingness and to encourage the wealthy to prefer them. He did not want them to find any need in their hearts from what they have been given. When He aimed for this, He separated their mention from what He intended by mentioning their qualities with His saying, 'so that it does not become a circulation among the wealthy of you,' until His saying, 'severe in punishment.' The mention of them was intended to serve as a prelude to the subsequent qualities. He mentioned another quality that is suitable to the first quality, which is poverty, to witness the benefit of combining for them the qualities of being poor and in need. Then their qualities followed, which are their expulsion from their homes and wealth as emigrants, seeking the bounty and pleasure of Allah, supporting Him and His Messenger, and being sincere in their intentions, and so on. This is what the preceding text guides to, supported by the original, for the relatives were mentioned with the quality of being unrestricted: the original is that they remain in that state until it is confirmed that they are intended by the restriction. What we have mentioned about directing that to the poor is enough to establish the weight of the speech, so the relatives remain on the original of being unrestricted. This is a principle that the Hanafis cannot contest, for they see that the exception that follows the sentences pertains to the last sentence, because returning to it establishes the weight of the speech and purifies what precedes it based on the original. There is no difference between following with an exception and substitution and anything other than this. Moreover, if it were made a substitute for the relatives with what follows it, its substitution from the relatives would only be a substitution of part for the whole, as the relatives are divided into poor and wealthy. Its substitution from the poor would only be a substitution of one thing for another, and they are of one essence. It must be that this substitution is perceived in the two mentioned types in one state, which is impossible due to the differences between the two types and their contrasts. Each of them demands what the other rejects. This amount is sufficient, if Allah, the Exalted, wills. On this, Al-Zajjaj interpreted the verse, making it a substitute specifically for the poor. And Allah, the Exalted, is the one who grants success to the truth. The one who prevented the substitution from: 'for Allah and for the Messenger' and what is conjoined to them, even if the meaning is for the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, is that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, excluded His Messenger from the poor in His saying, 'and they support Allah and His Messenger.' He elevates His Messenger above being named as poor, and that the substitution in its apparent wording is contrary to the obligation in glorifying Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Those are the truthful in their faith and struggle.