Volume 4: Surah Baqarah, Verses 253-254
تِلْكَ الرُّسُلُ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۘ
مِّنْهُم مَّن كَلَّمَ اللَّـهُۖ
وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَهُمْ دَرَجَاتٍۚ
وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِۗ
وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّـهُ مَا اقْتَتَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن بَعْدِهِم مِّن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ وَلَـٰكِنِ اخْتَلَفُوا فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ آمَنَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن كَفَرَۚ
وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّـهُ مَا اقْتَتَلُوا وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يُرِيدُ ﴿٢٥٣﴾ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَنفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقْنَاكُم مِّن قَبْلِ أَن يَأْتِيَ يَوْمٌ لَّا بَيْعٌ فِيهِ وَلَا خُلَّةٌ وَلَا شَفَاعَةٌۗ
وَالْكَافِرُونَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ ﴿٢٥٤﴾
These apostles, We have made some of them to excel others; among them are some to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by degree (of rank); and We gave clear (evidence) to Isa, son of Maryam, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them; but they differed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied; and if Allah had so pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah does what He intends (253). 0 You who believe! Spend out of what We have given you, before the day comes in which there is no bargaining, neither any friendship nor intercession; and the unbelievers - they are unjust (254).
GENERAL COMMENT
These two verses do not differ much in context from the preceding verses which ordained fighting and spending in the way of Allah. Then came the story of Talut, in this context, so that the believers might learn important lessons from it, and that story ended on the words, “and most surely you are one of the apostles” which are immediately followed by the opening sentence of this verse, “These apostles, We have made some of them to excel the others.” Thereafter, it describes why those who came after those apostles fought one with another. (In the story of Talut also, there was a restrictive phrase, “after Musa” to describe “the chiefs of the children of Israel”.) Then it reverts to the exhortation of spending in the way of Allah before the final day comes.
All these similarities in context strongly support the view that these two verses are connected with the previous ones, and that all of them were sent down together.
The verse purports to remove a common misunderstanding, which is as follows:
The apostleship, especially when it was accompanied by clear evidence, that is, arguments and miracles to prove its truth, should have ended the scourge of fighting. It could have happened in one of the two ways: (1) When Allah sent the apostles and gave them clear signs for the specific purpose of guiding people to their bliss in both worlds, it would have been proper if He had also prevented them from fighting among themselves and united them all in the truth. So, why is there so much fighting going on among the followers of those apostles? This objection becomes all the more telling after the advent of Islam which counts unity as one of the pillars of its shari 'ah and the basis of its laws. (2) The sending of the apostles and the giving to them of the clear signs was done for the specific purpose of creating faith in peoples' hearts. Belief and faith is a spiritual characteristic, which cannot be created by force and coercion. Then what the use of fighting once the prophets and the apostles had been sent.
We have explained this objection together with its reply in the commentary of the verses of fighting.
In this verse, Allah gives the following reply: The fighting among the followers of the apostles occurred because the said followers differed among themselves. Had they not differed, there would not have been any fighting among them. The cause of the fighting was, therefore, their difference. It is true that if Allah so wished, there would not have occurred any difference; and thus there would not have been any fighting. Alternatively, He could have disconnected the cause, that is, the difference, from its effect, that is, fighting; so that even if there was difference, there would not have occurred any fighting. But Allah does what He wishes; and He has decreed that the effect will follow its cause; also, that the people will have freedom of choice, and that there will not be any compulsion for them to follow a certain course.
And that is why they differed, and were not prevented from it, and that is why the said difference caused the fighting.
COMMENTARY
QUR'AN: These apostles, We have made some of them to excel the others:
It demonstrates the greatness of the apostles and the grandeur of their status. That is why the demonstrative pronoun “tilka” (those) has been used, which is meant to point to a distant object. The verse shows the excellence given by Allah to some of them over others - some of them have been given more excellence than the others. But all of them are great, as the apostleship in itself is an excellence, which all of them share. There is a difference among the apostles, of their grades and ranks; and there is a difference among their followers, as the verse describes. But the two types of differences have nothing in common: The difference among the apostles is only in their ranks and grades, but they all are one in the basic excellence of apostleship; and the conflict of the people of the apostles is the one which is found between belief and disbelief, between affirmation and negation. It goes without saying that the two differences are quite separate from each other. And that is why Allah has used separate words for each. The difference in the rank and grade of the apostles has been named excellence, and it has been attributed to Allah, “We have made some of them to excel others”. The conflict of the followers of the apostles has been called a difference, and it has been attributed to the men themselves, “they differed”.
The verse ends on the topic of fighting, and the preceding verses were also concerned with admonition to fight in the way of Allah, and with a story about it. It obviously means that the sentences under discussion, “These apostles . with the holy spirit”, are a prologue to make the meaning of the next sentences clearer. It shows that the institution of apostleship, in spite of all its blessings and good, has not been able to end fighting among the people, because the said fighting is initiated by the people themselves.
The apostleship has a high, towering excellence; and its good and bliss have everlasting freshness; whenever you look at it you will see a new beauty, and whichever aspect you ponder upon, you will find a new virtue. This excellent institution. in spite of its brilliant splendor and awe-inspiring magnificence, in spite of its accompanying clear evidence and miracle, is not able to eradicate the differences of people in belief and disbelief. It is so, because this difference is caused by the people themselves. Allah has mentioned this fact in various verses: Surely the religion with Allah is Islam; and those to whom the book had been given did not differ, but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves (3:19). Mankind was but one nation.. and none differed about it but the very people who were given it revolting among themselves (2:213).
The fact remains that if Allah had so wished He could have prevented this difference and the resulting fighting by His creative decree. But Allah has established a system of cause and effect in the universe, and difference is the established cause of conflict and fighting. Also, if He had so wished, He could have forbidden it by His legislative decree; or He could have refrained from giving the believers the order to fight in His way. But He gave this order; and made it a criterion of faith, “so that Allah may separate the impure from the pure”, “and most certainly Allah will know those who believe and most certainly He will know the hypocrites”.
In short, fighting among the people of the apostles cannot be avoided, as there is always the possibility of people differing because of envy and revolt. The apostleship and its clear evidence are sufficient to refute wrong beliefs and clear away doubts. But envy, revolt, obstinacy and other such moral defects cannot be removed and the earth cannot be purged of them except by fighting in the way of Allah, which will better the condition of humanity. Experience proves that in many cases arguments alone were not effective unless they were supported by the sword. That is why Allah ordered His apostles, whenever necessary, to stand in support of truth and fight in His way. He so ordered in the days of Ibrahim and the prophets of the children of Israel, and after the Apostle of Allah came. More details have already been given under the verses of fighting.
QUR’AN: Among them are some to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by degree (of rank):
In these sentences the pronouns and verbs have been changed from the first person of the preceding one (We have made some of them to excel) to the third person. The reason - and Allah knows better - may be as follows:
Meritorious epithets are of two kinds: First, that which in itself is enough to show the merit and honor of the person or thing so described; for example, the clear evidence and the miracle, and being strengthened with the holy spirit, which has been mentioned in respect of ‘Isa (a.s.). There is no doubt that these epithets are, per se, splendid and lofty. Second, that which in itself has no value unless it is related to a great subject, and its merit and honor depend upon the prestige of the doer; for example, being spoken to, per se, has no virtue, but if one is spoken to by a great personality it bestows an honor to the man who is spoken to. And it carries a very great splendor if one is spoken to by Allah. Likewise, being raised in rank, per se, has no virtue unless it is done for example, by Allah.
In this light, we may easily appreciate the great eloquence of the Qur’an in changing the pronouns in three sentences “among them are some to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by degree (of rank); and We gave clear (evidence) to ‘Isa...” When Allah described the virtues of being spoken to and being raised in rank, He changed the pronouns to the third person clearly mentioning the name, ‘Allah’, as the bestower of these merits. When the epithets reached clear evidence, etc., which were honored in themselves, the pronouns reverted to the first person of the starting sentence and said: “and We gave clear evidence to ‘Isa son of Maryam”.
The commentators advance various opinions as to who is meant by the two sentences. It is said that “some to whom Allah spoke” refers to Musa, as verse 164 of chap. 4 says: And We spoke to Musa (directly) speaking (to him), and as several other verses testify. Also, it is said that it means the Apostle of Allah, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), because Allah spoke to him on the night of the ascension when Allah brought him near Himself to such a degree that all intermediate links vanished completely, and Allah addressed to him His revelation directly without any intermediary. He says: Then he (i.e., Muhammad) drew near, and he became pending (i.e., in between the Creator and His creatures) ; so he was the measure of two bows or closer still. And He revealed to His servant what He revealed (53:8-10). A third interpretation is that the speaking means revelation in general, because revelation is a secret speaking, and it has been termed speaking in the verse, And it is not for any man that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger so that he reveals by His permission what He pleases (42:51). But this last interpretation does not conform with the preposition “min” (from, among) which denotes that not all, but only “some”, of the apostles were given this distinction - and revelation was not confined to only a few of them, it was common to all.
The most appropriate interpretation is that it refers to Musa (a.s.), because Allah’s speaking with him was already mentioned in a chapter of Meccan period (which was revealed long before this chapter 2, which is a Medinite chapter) : And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him . He said: “O Musa! Surely I have chosen you above the people with My message and with my speech. . “ (7:143-144). Obviously the fact that Musa was spoken to by Allah had been well understood when the verse under discussion was revealed.
Likewise, various interpretations have been offered for the sentence, “and some of them He exalted by degree (of rank)”.
It is said that it refers to Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), as Allah raised him in status and exalted over all the apostles, because He:
- sent him towards all the men -: And We have not sent you but to all the men... (34:28) ;
- made him a mercy to the worlds -: And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds (21:107);
- made him the Last of the prophets -: ...but he is the apostle of Allah and the last of the prophets... (33:40);
- gave him the Qur'an, which is the guardian over all books and explains clearly everything, and is protected from the alterations of wrongdoers, and, in short, is a miracle which will last up to the end of the world - : And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the book and a guardian over it (5:48); And We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything. . (16:89); Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9) ; Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Qur'an, they could not bring the like of it, even though some of them were aiders of the others (17:88).
- and gave him especially the established and upright religion which is responsible for all the good of this world and the next -: Then set thy face upright to the established religion (30:43).
Another interpretation is that it refers to various prophets who were raised in status in one way or the other. For example, the following prophets:
Nuh (a.s.) -: Peace be on Nub in all the worlds (37:79).
Ibrahim (a.s.) -: And (remember) when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, then he fulfilled them. He said: “Surely I will make you Imam for mankind. . “ (2:124): And make for me a truthful tongue (i.e., goodly mention) among the posterity (26:84);
Idris (a.s.) -: And We raised him to a high station (19:57);
Yusuf (a.s.) -: We raise the degrees of whomsoever We please (12:76);
Dawud (a.s.) -: And We gave to Dawud Psalm (4:163); and likewise various other prophets.
A third interpretation is that the words, “These apostles”, in the beginning of the verse, refer to those apostles only who have been mentioned in this chapter of the Cow, like Ibrahim, Musa, ‘Isa, ‘Uzayr, Armiah, Ushmu’il, Dawud, and Muhammad, the peace of Allah be on them all. Out of them Musa and ‘Isa have especially been mentioned in this verse, and from among the rest it is Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) who has been raised in degrees of rank over the others.
A fourth interpretation: “These apostles” refers to only those who have been mentioned in the preceding story; and they are Musa, Dawud, Ushmu’il and Muhammad. Musa’s distinction has been mentioned, and that is his being spoken to. Then comes the topic of raising the degrees of rank, and from the above list, no one is more deserving for it than Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). Probably, that was the reason why ‘Isa had to be mentioned in this verse by name because in the preceding story he was not mentioned at all.
But a well balanced interpretation would be as follows:
There is no doubt that the exalted rank of the Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), is included in the meaning of this sentence; but there is no reason to suppose that the sentence refers only to his excellence or only to those prophets who are mentioned in the story of Talut or in the chapter of the Cow, because all such view are arbitrary and without any justifiable reason. It is quite obvious that the verse is general; “these apostles” refer to all the apostles sent by Allah, and “some of them lie exalted by degrees of rank” covers all those apostles who were exalted by Him in any way.
Someone has said: The context shows that the sentence, “some of them He exalted . “, refers only to Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). The verse gives a lesson to those nations that fight among themselves, after their apostles, even though their religion is one - and only three such nations were present when the verse was revealed: the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. Therefore, it was appropriate to mention their apostles especially; Musa and 'Isa have already been described in the verse, and it means that the remaining sentence, “some of them He exalted .”, specifically refers to Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).
Comment : The Qur'an decrees that all the apostle were sent to all of mankind, as Allah says:. . We do not make any distinction between any of them . (2:136). The apostles brought them clear signs, arguments and miracles. This fact in itself should have been enough to cut at the root of mischief and disorder, and to prevent fighting among their followers. But those followers differed with one another because of their rebellion, envy and worldly desire. This was the basic cause which gave rise to the fighting. Therefore, Allah ordains fighting when the good of mankind depends upon it, so that He may manifest the truth of what was true by His words, and cut away the root of the wrongdoers.
This context shows that the verse is not particularly concerned with any nation; rather its import is general.
A TALK ABOUT THE SPEECH OF ALLĀH
The sentence, ‘‘among them are some to whom Allāh spoke’’, shows that Allāh did speak to some people; it proves that an actual occurrence did happen, that it is not an allegory or analogy; and that Allāh has named that occurrence His ‘‘speech’’. We shall discuss this subject in two parts:
First: The words of Allāh prove that all the blessings, bounties and distinctions which Allāh has reserved for His prophets and apostles and which are hidden from other people’s perception, like revelation, speaking, the descent of the spirit and the angels, and the witnessing of the great divine signs; as well as the things which He has informed His prophets and apostles about, like the angels, Satan, the Tablet, the Pen, etc., are actual and factual things. There is no allegory in their claims: when they said ‘‘angels’’ they did not mean ‘‘mental powers calling towards good’’; when they talked about ‘‘revelation’’, they were not referring to ‘‘the products of those mental powers’’; the holy spirit and faithful spirit, in their language, were not used for ‘‘the highest degree of those mental powers from which pure thoughts rain down for the good of the human society’’; Satan and jinn were not allegorical names for ‘‘base desire and unjustified anger which call towards evil and disorder’’; ‘‘the whispering of slinking Satan’’ was not another name for ‘‘the evil thoughts which disrupt a good society or make one commit bad actions’’; and so on.
The Qur’ānic verses, as well as the declarations of the previous prophets, show in the clearest way that they used these words in their actual meanings, not in an allegorical style. Nobody, except an obstinate and reckless contender, can have any doubt about it - and we have not undertaken to convince such a contender! If such clear expressions were to be explained away in this way, then all the spiritual facts given by these apostles could be interpreted in purely materialistic terms, totally rejecting existence beyond the matter! We have discussed it in short in the topic of miracle.
Anyhow, divine speech is a factual and actual thing, and it creates the same result which is created by our talking. It may be explained as follows:
Allāh has named some of His actions ‘‘speech’’ and ‘‘speaking’’: And Allāh spoke to Mūsā (directly) speaking (to him) (4:164); among them are some to whom Allāh spoke (2:253). And He has explained this vague expression in the verse: And it is not for any man that Allāh should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger so that he reveals by His permission what He pleases (42:51). The exceptional clause, ‘‘except by revelation . .’’, would be meaningless unless the speaking (mentioned in ‘‘should speak to him’’) is taken to mean real speaking. It then follows that the speaking by Allāh is real, even though it may have a special style and method. In short, the principle of ‘‘speaking’’ by Allāh is a reality and cannot be denied.
What is the reality of speech from our point of view? Man needs society and civilization, and, as a result, needs all the essential ingredients of co-operative civilization - and ‘‘speaking’’ is one of them. Nature has guided man to express his thoughts through the medium of the voice which is produced from his mouth. He has made various combinations of his voice as signs to describe various ideas which are produced in his mind. Needless to say that the only way to convey hidden ideas and thoughts to others is to appoint, and agree upon, some signs for them. Man needs. speech because there is no method to understand, and make others understand, other than words, the variously mixed and combined sounds which have been agreed upon as signs, and made as tokens for objects and ideas. That is why a language is closely related to the developmental stage of the society which it serves. When the society develops, the language also widens its circle to cope with it. In this manner, languages develop and widen their circles in direct relation with the development stages of the respective societies.
Speech makes others understand what is in the mind of the speaker, through the medium of combined sounds; these sounds have been agreed upon, by the speaker and the listener, as tokens and signs to convey certain ideas.
It follows that man develops speech when he is with other men. (Also, some animals who live together in colonies, and who have voices, use some particular sounds to express some particular feelings. This may be called their speech.) If there were a man completely cut off from other human beings, he would not need any speech, because there would be no need to communicate with others. Likewise, other creatures, who do not need any society or co-operation in their existences, do not need speech; two examples of this category are the angels and Satan.
It is certain that the speech of Allāh does not emanate from Him as it does with us. The human voice issues from the larynx and arrives at particular sounds by movements of the tongue, teeth, jaws and lips, and interaction between them. And, what is more, our speech is only a sign or token which we have agreed upon; sounds, per se, have no value or meaning if there be no prior agreement as to what they mean. But Allāh is too great in splendour and too high in glory to have any limb or organ, or to need help from such things as words, which have no real worth at all - whose value depends upon the agreement of the speaker and the listener. Allāh has said: Nothing is like a likeness of Him (42:11).
Still, Allāh in the verse mentioned earlier, (And it is not for any man that Allāh should speak to him except by revelation . - 42:51), confirms for Himself the reality of speaking, although He disallows for Himself that speaking with which we are familiar. Allāh dissociates Himself from that speech which is known to us and whose only value is that of a token or sign - which depends on agreed upon meanings. But He confirms speech for Himself with its particular effect. As the particular effect is the same, that is, making the other party understand the message, it can be called ‘‘speech’’ although it has no resemblance to our speech. It is like the words, scale, lamp and armament, which were made in old days for certain primitive tools and implements, and are now equally correctly used for new types of machine scales, electric bulbs and modern military hardware, because their effects are the same, even though the shapes are completely different.
The method by which Allāh lets His apostles and prophets know what He intends to convey to them is His speech. But we have not been told what is its reality and how it happens. But, in any case, its effect is the same: making the listener understand the intended message.
Divine speech is a divine action, like His other actions - giving life and death, sustaining, guiding, forgiving, etc. In other words, it is an attribute of action, not an attribute of person like knowledge, power and life. (The attributes of persons are not other than the person-himself). As ‘‘speaking’’ is an attribute of action, like other such attributes, it may be described in terms of space and time. Allāh has said: And when Mūsā came to Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: ‘‘My Lord: show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee.’’ He said: ‘‘You can never see Me’’ (7:143); . and indeed I created you before when you were nothing (19:9); . then Allāh said to them, Die; (and thereafter) He gave them life (2:243); We give sustenance to you and to them (6:151); . Our Lord is He Who gave to everything its creation, then guided it (20:50); then He turned to the (mercifully) that they might turn (to Him) (9:118). In these verses the speech of Allāh is qualified by the time and the place of its occurrence, like His other actions, e.g., creating, giving death, life and sustenance, guiding and turning towards His servants with mercy.
This explanation is enough for tafsīr, which is the subject of our book. We shall comment shortly afterwards on theological disputes and philosophical arguments concerning this topic.
Here another aspect of this subject should be looked into. Allāh has not used the words ‘‘speech’’ and ‘‘speaking’’ except about His talk with human beings. Of course, ‘‘word’’ and ‘‘words’’ have been used in other contexts. He has said: The Massiah, ‘Īsā son of Maryam is but an apostle of Allāh and His word which He communicated to Maryam (4:171). Here, ‘‘word’’ has been used for a human being himself. Also He says: And the word of your Lord that is the highest (9: 40); And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly (6:115); . the words of Allāh will not come to an end (31:27). In these verses, ‘‘word’’ and ‘‘words’’ mean the decree of Allāh, or some sort of creation.
The word, ‘‘saying’’, has been used by Allāh referring to His talk with human beings as well as with others. He says in connection with His talk:
- with man: So We said: ‘‘O Adam! Surely this is an enemy to you and to your wife’’ (20:117);
- with angels: And when your Lord said to the angels: ‘‘I am going to place in the earth a khalīfah’’ (2:30); When your Lord said to the angels; ‘‘Surely I am going to create a man from dust’’ (38:71);
- with Satan: He said: ‘‘O Iblīs! what prevented thee that thou shouldst do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands’’ (38:75);
- with inanimate things: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it was a vapour, so He said to it and to the earth: ‘‘Come both, willingly or unwillingly.’’ They both said: ‘‘We come willingly’’ (41:11); We said: ‘‘O Fire! be cold and a safety to Ibrāhīm’’ (21:69); And it was said: ‘‘O earth! swallow down thy water, and 0 sky! withhold (thy rain). .’’ (11:44).
All the above, with their diversity, are included in the following two verses:
His command, when He intends anything is only that He says to it: ‘Be’ and it is (36:82).
. . when He has decreed a matter He only says to it: ‘Be’ and it is (19:35).
We find that Allāh uses the word, ‘‘saying’’, about His address to those who have reason and hearing power, like man, as well as to inanimate things which do not have such powers (as we understand them) like the earth and the sky. Also, it is clear that the last mentioned two verses are a sort of explanation to the previously mentioned verses.
On pondering on all these aspects, one finds out that the divine ‘‘saying’’ means creating a thing to show the intended meaning. So far as the matters of creation are concerned, when Allāh creates a thing and brings it into existence, it exists. And the very thing is a ‘‘saying’’ of Allāh, because it, by its existence, shows the particular intention of Allāh for its creation. It is known that when He intends a thing and says to it : ‘Be’ and it comes into being, no word passes from the Creator to the thing created; there is in fact only the existence of the thing, and nothing else. Therefore, that is the thing created, and also it, in itself, is the word ‘Be’. In short, His saying, in matters of creation, is the creation itself, it is nothing separate from it.
In matters other than creation - for example, when He says something to .a man - it means that He creates something which gives that man an inner knowledge of the intended message. It may be by creating a voice in a body (like in the tree, for His talk with Mūsā; and in the curtain of light, in the case of the Prophet Muhammad - s.a.w.a.); or by some other method which we do not know, or whose modelity we do not understand.
The same is, more or less, the case of His speaking to the angels or Satan. But there is an important difference.
Unlike our existence, the existence of the angels and Satan is not biological and social. As a result, they do not achieve gradual perceptive perfection as we do. They do not have to make signs and tokens to indicate their intentions. When they want to understand, or make someone else understand, a thing it is not done through the medium of the voice. There is no combined sound, emanating from the larynx with inter-related actions by various parts of the mouth; and, also, there is no hearing, through a hole called the ear, receiving the sound from the air and conveying it through an intricate mechanism to the brain. Still, the reality of ‘‘saying’’ exists in both groups - and in their like, if there by any. And, as explained earlier, that reality is ‘‘making the addressee understand the intended message.’’
In short, among the angels, as well as among the Satans, there is ‘‘saying’’, but not like ours. Likewise, between Allāh and the angels (and between Him and the Satans) there is ‘‘saying’’ but not through the medium of voice and word.
In the same way, we may explain the ‘‘saying’’ which is attributed in the Qur’ān to the animals. For example, Allāh says: . an ant said: ‘‘O ants! enter into your dwellings . ’’ (27:18); . then said (the hoopoe): ‘‘I comprehend that which you do not comprehend, and I have brought to you a sure information from Sheba’’ (27:22).
The same meaning may be applied in the cases where Allāh ‘‘says’’ or ‘‘reveals’’ something to such animals. For example, And your Lord revealed to the bee, (saying): ‘‘Make hives in the mountains and in the trees and in what they build’’ (16:68).
There are some other words synonymous, or near in meaning, to ‘‘saying’’ and ‘‘speaking’’; for example, revealing, inspiring, informing and relating. Allāh says:
Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nūh and the prophets after him . (4:163).
And (I swear by) the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then He inspired it to understand what is wrong for it and right for it (91:7 - 8).
He (the Prophet) said: ‘‘Informed me the All-knowing, the All-aware’’ (66:3).
He relates the truth . (6:57).
The explanation, written in the beginning about the speech of Allāh, applies to these words also: There is an actual and factual occurrence which Allāh has named His , speaking, revealing and inspiring etc.; and it has the same effect that speaking, etc. has; it makes no difference whether we know its reality or not. (We shall have some further discussion about Revelation in chapter 42, God willing).
Even though the basic meaning is common to all the abovementioned words, their use is determined by context, and its suitability for the literal meaning. An utterance is called ‘‘speech’’ when the main emphasis is on conveying the message to the listerner’s mind; that is why this word had been used when Allāh wanted to show the excellence and high status of the prophets, because, in this context, the emphasis is on communicating which naturally draws the attention to the recipient of the communication. It is called ‘‘saying’’ when the main attention is on the intended meaning; and it is for this reason that the creative and legislative decrees and commandments are called ‘‘saying’’: He said, ‘‘The truth then it is and the truth do I speak, that I will most certainly fill hell with thee and with those of them who follow thee, all’’ (38:84 - 85). And it is called ‘‘revelation’’ when it is hidden from others; and, therefore, the communication of the message to the prophets is named thus: Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nūh and the prophets after him . (4:163).
Second: How is the word ‘‘speaking’’ used? In the beginning, words were made for phenomena which can be perceived by one of the five senses. Gradually the meanings shifted towards those meaning which could be perceived by the mind only. When a word is made for a material thing is used for a mental process or a metaphysical meaning, it is in the beginning done with allegorical sense; but the continued use makes the latter its real meaning. Likewise, the advancement of civilization and technology amends, improves and changes the tools and implements which are used by man. But even with such continuous changes and improvements, the name does not change. In old days, a ‘‘lamp’’ was a metal or earthen receptacle containing oil or fat in which a wick was placed and then lighted for illumination at night. From stage to stage it changed shape, technique and source of light; and now we have these electric bulbs, in which not a single thing of the original ‘‘lamp’’ remains. Still, we call it and similar other things ‘‘lamp’’ because the purpose is the same; this apparatus illuminates the night as the original lamp did. So long as this basic purpose is served by a new apparatus the original name, ‘‘lamp’’, is transferred to it in reality, not allegorically, even if all appearances have changed.
This example shows that a word is easily transferred to a change or new shape of the original form if the purpose of the original remains unchanged, and that this also will be its ‘‘real’’, and not ‘‘allegorical’’, meaning. Today, there are thousands and thousands of old names used for new items, and these names are treated as their real ones, not allegorical; because, in spite of radical changes in shapes and techniques, the original purpose has remained intact. Likewise, in every language there are countless words which were made for material things, and were later used for metaphysical objects - in reality, not as an allegory.
It shows that when the words ‘‘speaking’’ and ‘‘saying’’ are used in places where the effect is ‘‘letting the audience know the message’’ they are used in their real meaning. It is for this reason that we said earlier that when ‘‘saying’’ or ‘‘speaking’’ was attributed to Allāh, it was used in its real sense. It is the same with other words which are used sometimes for Allāh, and at other times for human beings, like life, knowledge, will, giving, withholding, etc. As the net result and effect of these words is found in the person and actions of Allāh, they are attributed to Him in their real meanings, even though their modelity and other aspects are totally different from what we understand from these words.
The same is the explanation of ‘‘exalting the apostles by degrees of rank’’. This exalting is a real thing, and not just a thing found in the mind of the speaker. We have already explained the difference between real existence and the existence in mind, under the heading ‘‘Knowledge and Action’’ under verse 2:213. We gave there the example of the phrase ‘‘a man who is president’’. Now ‘‘a man’’ has a real existence, but his ‘‘being president’’ is a thing found in the minds of people only. Such aspects have no existence outside the mind.
Many sincere men of religion have fallen into the error of thinking that this exalting by Allāh is also like the above-mentioned presidency. Once they had committed themselves to this explanation, they had to say that the effects of that exalting (for example, the things of the next world - paradise, hell, the questioning, the reckoning etc.) had the same relationship with this exalting as the parapharnalia of the presidency have with the said office - that the said relationship was, so to say, in the mind of the speaker only; it had no existence outside. They did not realize that such an explanation lowers the dignity of God, reducing Him to a position of sub-ordinate to His own suppositions and thoughts - Glorified is He from such sacrilegious imputations. Such people, because of that basic error, are not ready to believe that the prophets of Allāh and His chosen servants have been give some really-existing spiritual perfections, which the Qur’ān and the traditions clearly attributed to them; these people try to interpret such verses and traditions in such a way as to rob them of their real existence and turn them into the above-mentioned things which exist only in the mind.
QUR'AN: And We gave clear (evidence) to Isa, son of Maryam, and strengthened him with the holy spirit:
In this sentence, the original “first person” pronouns have been used; and we have already explained the reason for this. A question arises as to why only 'Isa, and no other prophet, has been mentioned here by name. The reason is this: What has been mentioned in his excellence - giving clear evidence and strengthening with the holy spirit - are things common to all apostles. Allah says: Certainly We sent Our apostles with clear evidence (57:25); He sends down the angels with spirit by His commandments on whom He pleases of His servants, (saying) : Give the warning . (16:2).
But these otherwise common factors were found in 'Isa in a rather special way. All his miracles - raising the dead, creating the bird by breathing into it, giving sight to the blind, curing lepers and giving information of the unseen - had a very special relation with the life and the spirit. Therefore, those factors were mentioned as the special excellence of 'Isa, and his name was clearly mentioned. Had Allah only said, “and We gave clear evidence to some of them and strengthened him with the holy spirit”, it would not have pointed especially to 'Isa, because, as you know, these two factors were common to all apostles. It was necessary to mention the name to show that these were given to 'Isa in a rather special way. Moreover, 'Isa himself was a clear evidence of the power of Allah, as he was born without a father. Allah says: and made her (Maryam) and her son a sign for the worlds (21:91). Thus, the son and his mother together were the signs of Allah, and it was their special distinction.
QUR'AN: And if Allah had pleased, those after them would not have fought one with another after clear arguments had come to them:
Here Allah again refers to Himself in the third person, because the context demands a clear declaration that the divine will cannot be obstructed and His power cannot be foiled. All happenings, in all their positive and negative aspects, are under divine control and authority. It is the attribute of godship which emanates unlimited power and unrestricted authority; and that is why the divine name, Allah, had to be clearly mentioned to emphasize the fact that if Allah had so willed, they would not have fought. This force could not be produced by saying, “if We had so willed . .” And it is for the same reason that the divine name, and not the pronoun, has been repeated in the next sentences, “and if Allah had so pleased they would not have fought”, and “Allah does what He intends”.
QUR'AN: But they differed; so there were some of them who believed and others who denied: We have already described why
Allah attributed the difference to the people, and not to Himself. He has declared several times that the difference in belief and disbelief appeared among people because of their envy, rebellion and evil desire; and such things cannot be attributed to Allah.
QUR'AN: And if Allah had so pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah does what lie intends:
We have already explained this. If Allah had so wished, le could have disconnected the cause, the difference, from its effect, the fighting. But Allah does what He intends, and He has decided that the difference will cause the fighting, according to the system of cause and effect which He has decreed in this world.
In short, the verse says that the apostles sent by Allah are His servants, very near to Him, above mankind in their excellence: they have been exalted, some above others, in the degrees of their ranks but they all equally share the basic excellence of apostleship. They came to their peoples with clear, arguments and miracles: they clearly pronounced the truth and unmistakably showed the right path. It might have been expected that their followers, after them, would not have abandon the unity, love and mutual regard in the cause of the religion of Allah. But there was another factor, lurking about, and that was their envy and rebellion, which divided them up into believers and non-believers; and this difference spread and affected all aspects of their lives. If Allah had so wished, He could have taken away the causative power of this difference, and then it would not have led to fighting. But He did not wish so, and let the system of cause and effect take its course; and He brings out what He wishes.
QUR'AN: 0 you who believe! Spend . and the unbelievers - they are unjust:
The meaning is quite clear. The last sentence implies that not spending in the way of Allah is unbelief and injustice.
TRADITIONS
al-Baqir (a.s.) said about the words of Allah: These apostles “There is in this (verse) that which may be a proof that the companions of Muhammad did differ (among themselves) after him, so there were some of them who believed and others who disbelieved.” (al-Kafi )
Asbagh ibn Nubatah said: “I was standing with the Leader of the faithful, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) on the day of the Camel.
There came a man and stood before him and said: '0 Leader of the faithfuls! These people (i.e., the enemies) said takbir (Allahu Akbar), and we said it ; and they said tahlil (la ilaha illa 'llah) and we said it ; and they prayed and we prayed. Then, on what (ground) are we fighting them?' He ('Ali - a.s.) replied: 'On (the basis of) this verse: These apostles, We have made some of them to excel others; among them are some to whom Allah spoke and some of them He exalted by degree (of rank) ; and We gave clear (evidence) to Isa, son of Maryam, and strengthened him with the holy spirit. And if Allah had pleased, those after them would riot have fought one with another - so we are those after them - but they differed; so there were some of them who believed and others who disbelieved; and if Allah had so pleased they would not have fought one with another, but Allah does what He intends. So we are those who believed and they are those who disbelieved.' 'Thereupon, the man said: 'These people are unbelievers, by the Lord of the Ka'bah!' Then he attacked and fought them until he was killed; may Allah have mercy on him!” (at-Tafsir, of al-'Ayyashi)
The author says: This event has been narrated by al-Mufid in his al-Amali, and by ash-Shaykh in his book of the same name, and by al-Qummi in his at-Tafsir. This tradition shows that 'Ali (a.s.) interpreted “disbelief” in this verse in a general sense, which includes hidden disbelief as well as open disbelief which is termed al-kufr (infidelity) in Islam and with which Islam deals in a special way. It is well-known from traditions and history that 'Ali (a.s.) did not treat his opponents (in the battles of the Camel, Siffin and Nahrawan) like any group of the unbelievers - they were not dealt with like unbelievers, whether from the people of the book or others, nor like the apostates. The only implication of this special treatment is that he thought them to be unbelievers in their hearts but not openly. And he (a.s.) used to say: “I fight against them on the interpretation (of the Qur'an), not on (its) revelation.”
The verse clearly supports this meaning. It says that the clear evidence brought by the apostles did not prevent the fighting of their followers because they differed among themselves; and such a difference cannot be removed by those arguments and evidence because it is not based on reason but on envy and rebellion. The verse thus describes the phenomenon mentioned in the following verses: -
And people were naught but a single nation, then they disagreed; and had not a word already gone forth from your Lord, the matter would have certainly been decided between them in respect of that concerning which they disagree (10:19).
Mankind was but one people, so Allah sent the prophets And none differed about it but the very people who were given it after clear signs had come to them, revolting among themselves; whereupon Allah guided, by His will, those who believed to the truth about which they differed (2 :213). ...and they shall continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has mercy... (11 :118-119).
All this shows that difference about the book, that is, about the religion, between the followers of the apostles, after the departure of those apostles, cannot be avoided. Allah says particularly about this ummah: Or do you think that you would enter the Garden while yet the like of those who have passed away before you has not come upon you? (2:214). And He informs us of the complaint of His Apostle on the Day of Resurrection: And the Apostle cried out: “0 my Lord! surely my people treated this Qur'an as a forsaken thing” (25:30). In these, and many other verses, this factor has been explicitly or implicitly mentioned.
And it is a fact that difference in the Muslim ummah started in the days of the companions. History and mutawatir and nearmutawatir traditions clearly show that, in the troubles and discords which started soon after the Apostle, the companions themselves dealt with each other in this same way. In their own eyes they were treading the path of the discord and difference mentioned in these verses. And none of them claimed that he was above any difference on account of 'ismah (sinlessness) or good tidings given to him by the Apostle, or ijtihad, nor did anyone say that he was not included in these verses. (We do not include Ahlu 'l-bayt of the Prophet in the term 'companion'.)
More details of this difference is beyond the scope of this book.
al-Mufid narrates in his al-Amali from Abu Basir that he said: “I heard Abu 'Abdillah (a.s,) say: 'Allah, Great is His name, was ever Omniscient in His person and there was nothing to be known; and He was ever Omnipotent in His person and there was nothing to be ordained.' I said: 'May I be your ransom! Was He then ever Speaking?' He said: 'Speech is created.' There was Allah and He was not speaking, then He created speech.' “
Safwan ibn Yahya said: “Abu Qurrah, the traditionalist, asked ar-Rida (a.s.) and said: 'Tell me, may I be your ransom! About Allah's speaking to Musa.' He (the Imam) said: 'Allah knows better in which language He spoke to him.' Abu Qurrah caught his own tongue and said: 'I am asking you about this tongue.' Thereupon Abu 'l-Hasan (a.s.) said: 'Glorified is Allah from what you say! And may Allah protect you (from thinking) that He might resemble His creatures or might speak like they speak; rather, He, Glorified be He, there is nothing like Him, nor there is any speaker or doer like Him.' (Abu Qurrah) said: 'How?' (The Imam) said: 'The speech of Allah with His creature is not like the speech of a creature with another creature; and He does not speak with a mouth and tongue; rather He says to it : 'Be' and it is. It was by His will He addressed (His) command and prohibition to Musa without any meditation in His Self.' “ (al-Ihtijaj)
'Ali (a.s.) said in a sermon: “Speaking, not by meditation, Wishing, not by contemplation.” (Nahju 'l-balaghah)
In the same book, he ('Ali - a.s.) says, inter alia, in another sermon: “He Who spoke to Musa (directly) speaking, and showed him of His great signs, without limbs and organs and without implements, sound or uvula.”
The author says: The traditions narrated from the Imams of Ahlu 'l-bayt with this meaning are numerous, and all of them show that the speech of Allah (to use the terminology of the Qur'an and sunnah) is an attribute of action, and not an attribute of Person.
A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SPEECH OF ALLĀH
Philosophers point out that when a speaker conveys his thought to the mind of a hearer, by means of words, it is popularly called speech and talk, and its net result is that the hearer understands and the speaker is understood. The reality of speech is ‘‘what conveys an idea to the other party’’; rather particulars - the medium of words, and their being produced by the passage of air through the larynx, mouth, and lips and their entering the ears of the hearer - are inconsequential; they are not essential to the reality of speech. Whatever describes the intended meaning is speech; even the movement of your hand to call someone to your side or to indicate to him to sit down, etc. is your speech, albeit without your uttering a single word.
Taking this as their basis, the philosophers say: the things found in the universe depend on their causes for their existence and for their characteristics. By their existence they pronounce the existence of their causes; and by their characteristics and faculties they show the characteristics and faculties of their causes. Therefore, every ‘‘effect’’ is a speech for its cause, and by this speech that cause talks about its own perfection.
And all existing things taken separately or jointly, and their aggregate, the universe, are, in this way, the speech of God; by this speech, God describes His perfect attributes which are otherwise hidden from us. Allāh is the Creator of the universe, and the universe is His creation. In the same manner, He speaks via the medium of the universe about His names and attributes, and the universe is His speech.
They go even further: They say that deep thinking leads one to the belief that the ultimate ‘‘speech’’ is God Himself. We say that the universe leads to the Creator; but leading is a quality of existence and nothing in the universe exists on its own. Every thing exists because God has given it existence. When a thing leads to the Creator, it does so by the existence and qualities given to it by the Creator. In other words, it is the Creator Himself Who leads to Himself through His creation. In the same way, it is He Himself Who leads to His creation. He Himself leads us to Himself; in this sense, He is the speech and the Speaker and the meaning; and at this stage, we may say that His speech is His person or an attribute of His person. Also, He Himself, by creating the universe, leads us to His power and wisdom; the universe is, thus, His speech to lead us to the Creator; and in this sense, speech (i.e., the universe) is an attribute of His action.
The author says: Quite apart from the question of the correctness of this interpretation, the words of the Qur’ān do not support it.
Speech, as mentioned in the Qur’ān and sunnah, is something different from the Speaker and the hearer. Allāh says: Among them are some to whom Allāh spoke (2:253); and Allāh spoke to Mūsā (directly) speaking (4:164); and Allāh said: ‘‘O ‘Īsā!’’ (3:55); and We said: ‘‘O Ādam!’’ (2:35); Surely We have revealed to you (4:163); informed me the All-knowing, the All-aware (66:3); there are numerous similar verses. Obviously, the speech or talk mentioned in them cannot mean the Person of Allāh by any stretch of imagination.
DISCUSSION OF SPEECH IN THEOLOGY: This subject was among the very first points of contention in the Muslim world; and that is why theology was named ‘ilmu ’l-kalām ( عِلْمُ الْكَلاَمِ = the knowledge of speech) in Islam. The question which split the Muslim scholars was whether the speech of Allāh was eternal.
The Ash‘arites said that it was eternal. But they invented a new meaning for ‘speech’. According to them, ‘speech’ means the thought and meaning which is found in the mind of the speaker, and the spoken word is a mere manifestation of that ‘speech’. They named it al-kalāmu ’n-nafsī ( يُّالكَلاَمُ النَّفْسِ ) that is, the speech found in the person. Armed with this new meaning, they said that the ideas and thoughts of Allāh are nothing more or less than the Knowledge of Allāh. And, as the knowledge of Allāh, they are self-existent, eternal. So far as the spoken words are concerned, they are obviously created, and separate from the person of Allāh.
The Mu‘tazilites said that it was created. And they interpreted ‘speech’ as the words which are spoken and which show the meanings for which they are made. They said that this was the meaning of ‘speech’ as understood by all; and what the Ash‘arites had named ‘‘the speech found in the person’’ is not speech; it is knowledge. In other words, when we talk, we do not find in our minds anything other than the mental pictures or the meanings which we express in our words. If that mental picture is called ‘‘the speech found in the person’’ then it is knowledge and nothing else. And if they use this name for something else, that something is unknown to us all.
The Ash‘arites say that it is possible to use two or more adjectives or names for a single thing, depending on the aspect or aspects which are to be emphasized. Now, if we think about that mental picture in terms of its being the picture of a truth or fact, then it will be called ‘‘knowledge’’; and if we look at it as a picture which can be transmitted to others, then it will be called ‘‘speech’’.
The author says: All this conflict and polemic is quite beside the point. The Knowledge of Allāh, whether its meaning, is al-‘ilmu ’l-hūdūrī ( العِلْمُ الْحُضُوْرِيُّ ), that is, the knowledge which is always present; the knowledge which is not separate from the person of Allāh.
And what these theologians, the Ash‘arites and the Mu‘tazilites, are arguing and talking about is al-‘ilmu ’l-husūlī' ( يُّالعِلْمُ الْحُصُولِ ), that is, the knowledge which is acquired. Such knowledge is acquired when ideas are produced in the mind; these ideas do not exist outside the mind. And we have proved somewhere else that ideas and quiddities are abstract things which do not exist outside the minds of human bings (and of some animals which perform their duties of life with the help of the five senses and some feelings).
Allāh, High and Glorified is He, is too great to be attributed with a ‘‘mind’’ with which He might perceive ideas and quiddities, which are not found outside the imagination of the perceiver. Otherwise, He would become a compound or composed thing and would be liable to transitory phases; and even His speech would have the potentiality to be wrong. Great and Glorified is He from such things.
It is clear from the above explanation that the polemics of the Muslim theologians are totally beside the point. What they were talking about was a kind of acquired knowledge which is beneath Divine dignity. And the ever-present and eternal Knowledge of Allāh is not under dispute as it is not called ‘‘speech’’ even by the Ash‘arites.
Further details, as to how He knows the ideas which we express in words, will be given in a more appropriate place.
* * * * *
0%
Author: Allamah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai
