وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَنْفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ قَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنُطْعِمُ مَنْ لَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ أَطْعَمَهُ إِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ
And when they are told, 'Give from what God has provided you,' those who disbelieve say to those who believe, 'Should we feed someone whom God would have fed if He had willed? You are clearly astray!'
The preceding verses describe people who turn away from God's signs and from the call to be mindful of Him. Here the Quran shows how that refusal also takes shape in their treatment of others. When asked to help those in need, they offer an excuse that sounds religious rather than accepting responsibility.
Instead of simply saying “from your wealth,” the verse says “from what God has provided you.” This reminds us that God is the ultimate owner of these resources. He has provided them and entrusted people with the ability to use and manage them. In the same world are people who need the support of others. Those who possess more than is required for their essential living costs should use part of that surplus to help meet the needs of the poor and vulnerable. Generosity, kindness and considerate treatment are forms of goodness that God loves. Possessing wealth is therefore not only an opportunity for personal benefit; it also entails responsibility towards others.
Yet those who reject the invitation reply, “Should we feed someone whom God would have fed if He had willed?” They turn God's power and will into an excuse to withhold help. Their argument is that if God provides sustenance and could make everyone prosperous, there should be no need for them to feed the poor.
The mistake is to confuse two different senses of God's will. God's creative will concerns His will in creating and governing the world, such as establishing the order of the earth and heavens. Whatever God wills to bring about in this sense comes to pass. Human freedom and ability also exist within this created order; they are not independent of God. God's legislative will, by contrast, is expressed in what He asks and commands people to do, such as helping those in need. Through these commands, He shows people the way towards what is good for them in this life and the Hereafter and puts them to the test. People, however, can choose to obey or disobey.
So if someone with means refuses to help a person in need, we cannot conclude that God did not want that person to receive help. God commanded the person to give from what He provided, but that person freely chose to disobey. Human disobedience does not mean the divine command was absent. Another person's need is not an excuse for indifference; it is an opportunity to fulfil our responsibility and choose kindness and generosity.
The invitation is to give from one's resources, a broader duty of generosity than providing food alone. But the objectors refuse even to feed those who are hungry. Their rejection of the truth has consequences not only for what they believe but also for how they treat other people.
Finally, they accuse the believers themselves of being plainly misguided, even though the believers are asking them to share some of what God has provided. The reversal reveals another aspect of their persistent refusal to acknowledge the truth. Belief in a merciful God who provides sustenance cannot justify indifference to the suffering of those in need; it ought to inspire generosity, kindness and a sense of responsibility.