Appearance
Verses 258–260
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِي حَاجَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي رَبِّهِ أَنْ آتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ إِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّيَ الَّذِي يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ قَالَ أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ ۖ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْتِي بِالشَّمْسِ مِنَ الْمَشْرِقِ فَأْتِ بِهَا مِنَ الْمَغْرِبِ فَبُهِتَ الَّذِي كَفَرَ ۗ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ٢٥٨ أَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَىٰ عُرُوشِهَا قَالَ أَنَّىٰ يُحْيِي هَٰذِهِ اللَّهُ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا ۖ فَأَمَاتَهُ اللَّهُ مِائَةَ عَامٍ ثُمَّ بَعَثَهُ ۖ قَالَ كَمْ لَبِثْتَ ۖ قَالَ لَبِثْتُ يَوْمًا أَوْ بَعْضَ يَوْمٍ ۖ قَالَ بَلْ لَبِثْتَ مِائَةَ عَامٍ فَانْظُرْ إِلَىٰ طَعَامِكَ وَشَرَابِكَ لَمْ يَتَسَنَّهْ ۖ وَانْظُرْ إِلَىٰ حِمَارِكَ وَلِنَجْعَلَكَ آيَةً لِلنَّاسِ ۖ وَانْظُرْ إِلَى الْعِظَامِ كَيْفَ نُنْشِزُهَا ثُمَّ نَكْسُوهَا لَحْمًا ۚ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ قَالَ أَعْلَمُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ٢٥٩ وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ ۖ قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِنْ ۖ قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي ۖ قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا ۚ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ ٢٦٠
- Did you not see him who disputed with Abraham about his Lord, because Allah had given him the kingdom? When Abraham said: My Lord is He Who gives life and cause to die, he said: I give life and cause death. Abraham said. So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it [you] from the west. Thus he who disbelieved was confounded; and Allah does not guide aright the unjust people.
- Or like him who passed by a town, and it had fallen down upon its roofs; he said: How will Allah give it life after its death? So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him to life. He said: How long have you tarried? He said: I have tarried a day, or a part of a day. Said He: Nay! You have tarried a hundred years; then look at your food and drink—years have not passed over it; and look at your donkey; and that We may make you a sign to men; and look at the bones, how We assemble them together, then clothe them with flesh. So when it became clear to him, he said: I know that Allah has power over all things.
- And [remember] when Abraham said: My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead. He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Certainly, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then cut them [into pieces], then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Commentary
The three verses describe the Oneness of the Creator and His Omnipotence. They have, therefore, some connection with the preceding verses; and possibly these were revealed together with them.
(2:258) Did you not see him who disputed with Abraham about his Lord: al-Muḥājjah is to bring a proof against the opposite party's, to prove one’s own claim or to refute the other party’s argument. The basic meaning of al-ḥujjah is intention; now it is generally used for “proof” by which one intends to prove one’s claim. The phrase “about his Lord” is connected with the verb “disputed.” The pronoun in “His Lord” refers to Abraham, as may be inferred from the next sentence, “Abraham said: ‘My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die.’ ” The man who disputed with Abraham was the king of his time; and according to history and traditions, he was the Babylonian king, Namrūd (Nimrod).
We may understand the nature of this argument and the subject of the dispute, if we look at the context of the verse and reflect upon the behavior of mankind in the past as well as in the present.
Man, by his nature, has always remained submissive to the powers about him which effect, in one way or the other, his life. No student of anthropology, who has studied the behavior of the ancients, or has looked at the present generations of various nations, can have any doubt about it. We have described it in preceding discourses; and also it has been pointed out that man, by his nature, accepts that there is a Creator for the universe, Who has brought it into existence, and Who manages it. Every man, by the dictate of nature, believes this—be he a monotheist (a follower of the prophets), a polytheist (like an idol-worshipper) or an atheist (like a materialist). Nature’s demand cannot be negated so long as man is man (although the effect of it may at times become weaker or dormant).
Primitive man, in his simplicity, thought of every thing in the light of his own experience. He saw that he performs different acts by means of his different organs and limbs; and likewise, in society’s structure, various people discharge various duties and functions. And the natural phenomena in the world happen because of their respective natural causes which are closely related to them. Yet, his nature led him to believe in a Creator who had all the affairs of the universe in His hand. Not surprisingly, he thought that every phenomenon of the world had a special deity of its own—and all those deities were under the authority of a Supreme God. Sometimes he named them deities for various things; for example, the deity of the earth, the deity of the rivers, the deity of fire, the deity of wind, and so on. At other times, he attributed these functions to the stars, and especially to the planets, the sun and the moon, ascribing to each various faculties believing that each of them affected this world of ours in its own way. This belief was held by the Sabaeans. The next stage was to make images and statues for those lesser deities. Then he started to worship those idols so that the particular image might intercede on behalf of the worshipper with its particular deity, which in its turn was expected to intercede with the Supreme God—thus ensuring bliss and success for the worshipper in this life and after death.
That also explains why the idols were made in different shapes in different tribes. Views and opinions as regards the attributes of various species and the conceptions of their related deities could not be the same in two nations; and even in one nation they changed with the times. Sometimes other considerations and inclinations crept into the system. Gradually, the idols usurped the place of the said deities, and even the Supreme God was relegated to obscurity. Worshippers intended to give their devotion more and more to what was near them, which they could see and touch, and thus they tended to forget what was beyond their five senses. In this way, idols took the place of the Creator. All this happened because initially they thought that those lesser deities had some influence and control over the affairs of their lives—that the will of those deities dominated their own will and that those deities’ management prevailed over their own plans and management.
When some powerful personality appeared on the scene and took the reins of the kingdom in his hands, he often exploited this trend of thought; he had their affairs and their lives in his hands, and it was easy for him to claim for himself the status of divinity, declaring himself to be a god. This is what was done by Pharaoh, Namrūd and many others. It is interesting to note that such people included themselves in the list of deities, while, like their subjects, they continued to worship the idols of their nations. But invariably they always ended up by usurping the dominant position for themselves. In this design of theirs the same process of thought helped them which had raised the idols’ status in their people’s eyes: the king’s influence, authority and hold over his people were more manifest than those of the other deities. Pharaoh declared before his people: I am your most high Lord (). And he made this claim of supremacy while continuing to worship the other deities. Read for proof the words of God giving the import of the talk of the courtiers of Pharaoh with him showing the danger from Moses: … and to forsake you and your Allahs? (). The same was the claim of Namrūd as may be inferred from his assertion: “I give life and cause death.”
The above discourse may easily explain this dispute between Abraham and Namrūd. Namrūd believed that there was a Supreme God. Otherwise, he would not have been confounded by the argument of Abraham: So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it [you] from the west. If he had not believed in a Supreme God, he could have said that it was he (that is, Namrūd) or some other deity, who brought the sun from the east, and not Abraham’s God. Apart from the Supreme God, he and his people believed in some other deities too. The life story of Abraham provides ample proof that they worshipped the sun, the moon and the stars, as well as idols. Also read the talk of Abraham with his uncle on the subject of idols, and see how he shattered their idols (except the big one). All of it shows that Namrūd believed in the divinity of God, as well as in other deities, but at the same time claimed to be a god—indeed the highest god—himself. That was why he tried to prove his own divinity in this dispute with Abraham, and did not even mention the other, lesser, deities.
Now we should look at the dispute. It was Abraham’s claim that his Lord is God, and no one else. Namrūd said: “No! I am your Lord and the Lord of everyone else.” Abraham argued: “My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die.” Namrūd said: “I give life and cause death.” He wanted to show that he held the power which Abraham attributed to his Lord; therefore, Abraham should submit to him, and worship him, neither God nor other lesser deities deserved to be worshipped. Note that he did not add “and” in his reply; he did not say, “and I give life …” Why? Because the conjunctive “and” would have meant that he shared this power with God; and he did not want to admit any such “partnership” he wanted to be worshipped as the most supreme Lord of the universe. And it was for this very reason that he did not say either, “and the gods give life …”
He could not honestly refute the argument of Abraham; so he resorted to sophism, fallacy and deception. When Abraham mentioned life and death, he meant life and death as we find them in living things. His argument was that these living things could only be created by One who was the source of life. Lifeless nature cannot bestow life on others when it has no life itself. Nor can other living things give life to others, because their life is their existence and their death their extinction—and a thing cannot create or destroy its own self.
If Namrūd had interpreted Abraham’s argument honestly, he could not have refuted it at all. But he resorted to deception, interpreting life and death with an allegorical meaning. “To give life” really means, for example, to create a living foetus; but it may be used equally correctly (but in metaphorical way) if you rescue someone from an extremely dangerous situation. Likewise, “to cause to die” really means the act of God by which a soul departs from a body; but metaphorically it may be used for murder, and so on. Taking advantage of this metaphorical usage, Namrūd ordered two prisoners to be brought before him; one he ordered to be killed and the other was set free. It was at this stage that he uttered the words, “I give life and cause death.” The courtiers were taken in by this ruse and accepted the “truth” of the argument. Abraham was not in a position to unmask the fallacy of this reply; he saw how Namrūd has duped the audience with his deception and how blindly they agreed to his sophism. Nobody would have agreed with Abraham even if he had tried to expose that fallacy. Therefore, he switched to another clearer argument which his obstinate opponent could not twist in any way, and said: “So surely God brings the sun from the east; then bring it [you] from the west.”
Those people (or some of them) believed the sun to be a deity. (Look at the story of Abraham, concerning the stars, the moon and the sun in the Qur’an -78) But they also believed that these sources of light and their various phases, rising, setting, and so on, were ultimately in the hands of God, who, according to them, was Lord of Lords, God of gods. When a doer does an act by his own free will, he may just as easily reverse that action if he so changes his intention; the direction of his action follows his will. Therefore, when Abraham put this argument before Namrūd, he was confounded. He could not say: “The rising of the sun from the east has been, since the very beginning, a matter of chance; it needs no cause,” because commonsense demands a cause for an effect. Nor could he say: “This system is not caused or controlled by God,” because he himself professed to believe in the Lord of Lords who controlled the sun, and so on. And he could not say: “It is I who bring it from the east”; because Abraham had already closed this line of argument by saying, “then bring it (you) from the west.” He was thus ignominiously humiliated and disgraced. “And God does not guide aright the unjust people.”
Because Allah had given him the kingdom? The import of this sentence is like one’s saying: “He mistreated me because I did good to him.” The speaker wants to say: I did good to him; it was to be expected that he also would do good to me; instead, he misbehaved towards me. An Arabic proverb points to this very trait of human nature: “Be on guard against the evil of him to whom you did good.” A poet says:
His sons rewarded Abu al-Ghaylān, for his old age
and good deeds, as was rewarded Sinimmār.
In this sentence, “L” (because) is deleted but understood. It puts a reason in place of its opposite. This style puts the accusation in a sharper perspective. The rebellion and transgression of Namrūd would have been understandable if there had been any sign of God being ungenerous toward him. But God did nothing to him except good and He gave him the kingdom too. Therefore, this generosity was mentioned as the cause of his rebellion, to emphasize his ingratitude. In a way, it is like the verse: And Pharaoh’s family took him [Moses] up, so that he might be an enemy and a grief for them ().
This is one reason why his getting the kingdom has been mentioned here. There is another reason too: to show that his claim was absurd ab initio. He claimed to be god because of the kingdom which was given to him by God; he did not own it himself. He had become Namrūd, the king, the mighty and powerful, because, God had made him so. Strip him of this bounty of God and what was left of him? Just a common man with no special quality or attribute. That is the reason why God did not mention him by name; he was described just as the one who disputed with Abraham about his Lord. This was done to show his insignificance and lowliness.
Why did God say that it was He who gave Namrūd the kingdom? In previous discourses it has been shown that this cannot be objected to. The kingdom, like all other powers and authorities, is a bounty and grace of God; He gives it to whom He pleases and man has been give the knowledge of God in his nature, and because of that natural instinct he inclines towards Him. Now, if he made good use of that kingdom putting every thing in its place, it would be a bliss and blessing for him, as God says: And seek by means of what Allah has given you the future abode … (). And if he transgressed the limits and deviated from the right path, it would become a curse and perdition for him, as God says: Did you not see those who changed Allah’s favor for ungratefulness and made their people to alight into the abode of perdition? (). It has already been explained that every thing is attributed to God, but in a way that is befitting to His majesty, glory and sanctity—from the view of the good points of that thing, and not from that of its bad points.
One commentator has erroneously thought that the pronoun, “him,” in the phrase, “because God had given him the kingdom” refers to Abraham. According to him, it means that Namrud disputed with Abraham because God had given Abraham the kingdom; that it refers to the kingdom of Abraham mentioned in the Qur’an: Or do they envy the people for what Allah has given them of His grace? So indeed we have given to Abraham’s children the Book and the wisdom, and We have given them a great kingdom (). According to that commentator, the kingdom in the verse under discussion cannot refer to that of Namrūd, because it was a kingdom of oppression and sin; it cannot be said that such a kingdom was given by God.
But this assumption is wrong because:
First: The Qur’an attributes such a kingdom and many similar things to God. For example, it quotes the believer from the family of Pharaoh as saying: O my people! Yours is the kingdom this day, being masters in the land… (); and the words of Pharaoh himself are quoted (without any adverse comment): O my people! Is not the kingdom of Egypt mine? (). And at the same time it declares: … to Him (that is, God) belongs the kingdom … (). This verse confines the kingdom to God; there is no kingdom but of Him and from Him. The Qur’an quotes Moses as saying: Our Lord! Surely Thou host given to Pharaoh and his chiefs finery and riches in this world’s life … (); and God says about Korah (Qārūn): … and We had given him of the treasures, so much so that its keys would certainly weigh down a company of men possessed of strength … (); and He says addressing his Prophet: Leave Me and him whom I created alone, and I gave him vast riches … (-12); there are many similar references.
Second: Such an interpretation does not fit the obvious meaning of the verse. The verse shows that Namrūd was disputing with Abraham about the latter’s belief and monotheism, not that he had any argument with him about his kingdom. The kingdom was already in Namrūd’s hands and Abraham had no worldly kingdom for which Namrūd could have disputed with him.
Third: Everything is attributed to God, as explained earlier, and kingdom is no exception. There is no snag in attributing it to God.
When Abraham said: My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die: Life and death are found even in vegetation; but Abraham, in this argument, meant the life and death found in animals and human beings, or he kept in view their general meaning which included human life and death. The evidence for this meaning may be seen in the reply of Namrūd: “I give life and cause death.” Obviously Namrūd, by this claim, did not mean the giving of life to vegetables (through tilling and farming), or animals (by breeding them and bringing the male and female together). This type of life giving was not special to him; any human being could do it. The traditions also support our interpretation: he had two prisoners brought before him, he freed one and killed the other, and then he said: “I give life and cause death.”
Abraham selected for his proof the authority of giving life and causing death, because nature, having no life or sense itself, cannot give life to any thing; and more evidently, it cannot be supposed to give life to animals and humans as it is accompanied by sense and perception. And the same is the case with death. Such a clear and indisputable proof failed to convince the people of Namrūd. Their intellectual degradation and mental confusion had sunken far lower than the level which Abraham had credited them with. They thought that the life and death referred to included the metaphorical meaning of freeing from prison and killing. Thus, Namrūd claimed, and they vouched that he gave life and caused death.
This talk shows how low the level of intellectual development was in that time, as far as abstract and non-material ideas were concerned. Do not be misled by their advanced civilization, signs of which are found in the archaeological remains of the Babylonia of the Chaldeans and the Egypt of the Pharaohs. Material advancement is one thing, and progress in abstract and non-material ideas is something else. We see the same phenomenon in this world of ours which has made a fantastic advancement in the material field, and has sunk so terribly low in morality, ethics and spiritual knowledge.
Abraham did not put before them the argument that the whole universe needed an Omnipotent, Omniscient Originator of the heavens and the earth. He had used this method in his early days; and God quotes him as finally saying: Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists (). No doubt, those people, forced by natural instinct, believed vaguely in a Supreme Creator. But their intellectual capacity was too limited to let them clearly and truly understand about that Creator. Had Abraham put this argument before them, they could not have appreciated it at all. Look, at what they understood from his argument: “My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die ! ”
… he said: I give life and cause death: Therefore, I am that Lord of yours who, you say, gives life and causes death.
Abraham said: So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it [you] from the west; thus he who disbelieved was confounded: When Abraham saw that his argument based on giving life and death had been twisted by his opponent, and that the public had been mislead by that deception, he thought it would be useless to clarify what he meant by giving life and causing death. Instead, he switched to another argument. Even then, he based this second argument on his opponent’s claim in the first argument. That is why he began the second argument with “So”; it shows a connection with the preceding sentence, and its import is as follows: If what you say is correct, and you are my Lord, and the Lord, as we both accept, manages and looks after this universe, then God manages the sun by bringing it from the east; so show your authority by bringing from the west. It will clearly prove that you are the Lord, as God is the Lord of everything, or that you are Lord of Lords. Thus, the disbeliever was confounded.
Abraham offered his second argument as an offshoot of Namrūd’s claim, to remove the chance of someone thinking that Namrūd’s argument was complete, perfect and irrefutable. And he changed the word “my Lord” (used in the first argument) to “God” (in this argument) because the opponent had misused that adjective and claimed that it referred to him. To remove the chance of that type of sophistry, Abraham used the proper name, “God.”
It has been described earlier that it was not possible for Namrūd to reply to this argument in any way, and, as a result, he was confounded and remained silent.
And Allah does not guide aright the unjust people: Apparently it gives the reason for Namrūd being confounded, not for his disbelief. God did not guide him, and, therefore, he was humiliated; had God guided him aright, he would have been able to reply to Abraham. It does not say that God did not guide him and therefore he became an unbeliever. Obviously, the talk centres around his dispute and argument, and is not about his belief.
The word “unjust people” hints at the cause of not being guided. God does not guide them because they are unjust. The same point has been kept in view wherever such sentences have been revealed. God says: And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah while he is invited to Islam? And Allah does not guide the unjust people (); The similitude of those who were placed under the Torah, then they did not hold it, is as the similitude of the donkey bearing books; evil is the similitude of the people who belie the signs of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people (). “Transgression” is likewise the cause of not being guided, as God says: but when they turned aside; Allah made their hearts turn aside; and Allah does not guide the transgressing people ().
In short, injustice is to turn aside from the path of justice, and to leave aside what should be done, and to do what should not be done. It diverts man from his intended goal, and leads him to disappointment and failure in the life hereafter. This fact is made abundantly clear in many verses of the Qur’an, which puts much emphasis on it.
Discourse
The discussion “Good & Evil Deeds vis-a-vis Guidance & Misguidance” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Examining Narrations
- About the words of God: Did you not see him who disputed with Abraham about his Lord: aṭ-Ṭayālisī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim have narrated from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that he said: “He who disputed with Abraham about his Lord was Namrūd (Nimrod), son of Kanʿān.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
- Abū ʿAlī aṭ-Ṭabrisī has said: “There is a difference of opinion as to the time when this dispute occurred. It is said that it was when he shattered the idols, before he was thrown into fire. (It is reported from Muqātil.) Also it is said that it was after he was thrown into fire, and it had became cool and safe for him. (It is reported from Imam al-Ṣādiq)” (Tafsīr al-burhān)
Author’s comments: The verse does not say when the dispute had taken place. But it may fairly be inferred that it was after Abraham had been thrown into fire. The stories written in the Qur’an about the early period of Abraham—when he argued with his uncle and other people and then shattered the idols, give us to understand that he first met Namrūd when he was taken to his court accused of breaking their idols; and Namrūd ordered him to be burnt alive. At that time Namrūd was too busy in sentencing him to have any dialogue with him about his Lord: whether it was God or Namrūd. Also, if this event had occurred at that time, Namrūd would have disputed with him on behalf of the idols, and not for establishing his own divinity.
There are many traditions, narrated by the Sunni and the Shiʾite narrators that the one “who passed by a town and it had fallen down upon its roofs” was the prophet, Armiah. Other traditions say that he was ʿUzayr. But both types of traditions are “solitary,” (that is, not mutawātir) and one is not bound to accept any of them. Moreover, the chains of some are weak. The Qur’an too is silent about the passerby’s identity, and the Bible does not mention this story.
The story given in those traditions is long, and there are some differences among them. In any case, those traditions are beyond the scope of our book. Those wishing to read them should look for them into other books.
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said in a tradition about the words of God: And (remember) when Abraham said: My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead …: “And this verse is allegorical; it means that he (Abraham) asked about ‘how’?, and ‘how’ is an action of God, Mighty and Great is He; (it is a thing that) if a knowledgeable person did not know it he cannot be faulted for it nor can any defect be attributed to his belief in monotheism …” (Maʿāni al-akhbar)
Author’s comments: The meaning of this tradition may be understood from our earlier explanations.
- ʿAlī b. Asbāṭ says that Abu al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā was asked about the words of God: He [Abraham] said: Certainly! but that my heart may be at ease. “Was there any doubt in his heart?” The Imam said: “No! but he wanted an increase (in it) from God …” (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
Author’s comments: This matter has been narrated in al-Kāfī from Imam al-Ṣādiq and al-ʿAbdu al-Ṣāliḥ. Its meaning has been explained earlier.
- al-Qummī narrated from his father from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr from Abū Ayyūb from Abū Basīr from Imam al-Ṣādiq saying: “Verily Abraham saw a dead body on a river-bank; aquatic carnivores were eating it, then they attacked each other and some of them ate the others. Abraham was astonished (to see it) and said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead. God said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Certainly, but that my heart may be at ease. God said: Then take four of the birds, then cut them into pieces, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. Thereupon, Abraham took a peacock, a rooster, a pigeon and a crow. Then God said: Cut them into pieces and mix their flesh together and place them separately on ten mountains. Thereafter he (Abraham) called them and said: Be alive by the permission of God. The birds began assembling, the flesh and bones of each joining together with its head; and they flew towards Abraham. (Seeing it) Abraham said: Verily, God is Mighty, Wise.” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comments: al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated it in his al-Tafsīr from Abū Baṣīr from Imam al-Ṣādiq; and it has been narrated through Sunni chains from Ibn ʿAbbās.
The words of the Imam: “Verily, Abraham saw a dead body … My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead,” describe the reason why Abraham asked this question: he had just seen the pieces of the body being disjoined and scattered, and their condition changed. He observed their dispersal in all directions and the deterioration in their condition which was to such an extent that nothing of the original body remained there.
Question: The tradition apparently says that the doubt was that which is known as the doubt of the eater and the eaten; because it mentions that the carnivores attacked each other and some of them ate the others, and that the wonder and question of Abraham was based on this phenomenon.
Reply: There are two doubts: (a) the scattering and dispersal of the parts of the bodies, the change in their properties and shapes, in short, their complete extinction so that apparently nothing remained to accept the life; (b) the parts of one animal become the parts of another animal; how could the two animals be resurrected whole? The part of one is also the part of another; whichever is resurrected whole, the other one will be incomplete. This is called the doubt of the eater and the eaten.
The answer given by God—that the body follows the soul—is sufficient to remove both doubts. But what Abraham was ordered to do was not related to the doubt of the eater and the eaten; it was directly concerned with the first doubt—dispersal of the parts and total extinction, even though the basic answer removes both doubts.
What the tradition mentions some of the carnivores eating the others is not intended to be a part of the explanation of the verse.
The Imam (al-Ṣādiq) has said: “Thereupon, Abraham took a peacock, a rooster, a pigeon and a crow.” Some other traditions say that the birds were a vulture, a duck, a peacock and a rooster. It has been narrated by Imam al-Ṣādiq in ʿUyūn al-akhbār from al-Riḍā. It has also been reported from Mujāhid, Ibn Jarīḥ, ʿAtāʾ and Ibn Zayd. Still others say that it was a hoopoe, a sparrow-hawk, a peacock and a crow. It has been narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī, through Maʿrūf b. Kharabbūdh, from al-Bāqir: and is reported from Ibn ʿAbbās too. Another Sunni tradition quotes Ibn ʿAbbās as saying that the birds were a crested crane, a peacock, a rooster and a pigeon. There is only one name which appears in every report: peacock.
The Imam said: “place them separately on ten mountains.” That the mountain were ten is unanimously mentioned in the traditions of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. Someone has put their number as four; another as seven.
- ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-Jahm said: “I was present in the court of al-Maʾmūn and with him was al-Riḍā (ʿAlī b. Mūsa). al-Maʾmūn said to him: ‘O Son of the Messenger of God! Is it not your belief that the prophets were sinless?’ He said: ‘Certainly.’ Then he (al-Maʾmūn) asked him (al-Ridā) about some verses of the Qur’an, and said to him, among others: ‘Now tell me about the words of God: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead. He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Certainly, but that my heart may be at ease. al-Riḍā said: ‘Verily God, Blessed and High is He, had revealed to Abraham: “I am going to take from my servants a friend; if he asks me to give life to the dead, I will grant his prayer.” It came into the heart of Abraham that he was that friend. Therefore, he said: My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead. Allah said:, What! and do you not believe? Abraham said: Certainly, but that my heart may be at ease about Thy friendship …” ’ ” (ʿUyūn al-akhbār)
Author’s comments: We have expressed our views (while discussing about the Garden of Adam) about ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. al-Jahm and about this tradition which he has narrated from [Imam] al-Riḍā.
However, this tradition throws some light on the fact that the status of the friendship of God brings with it the granting of prayers. The language supports this too. al-Khallah means ‘need.’ The friend is called al-khalīl because when friendship is perfect, one friend describes his needs to the other friend—and why should one describe his need if his friend cannot fulfil it?
Sinimmār, an architect of repute, built the palace, al-Khawarnaq, for King Nuʿmān. When it was completed, he was thrown down from the roof and thus died. The King gave this order so that he could not build such a palace for anyone else. ↩︎