Appearance
Verses 26–27
قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتَنْزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ ۖ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ ۖ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ٢٦ تُولِجُ اللَّيْلَ فِي النَّهَارِ وَتُولِجُ النَّهَارَ فِي اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَتُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَتُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَتَرْزُقُ مَنْ تَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ ٢٧
- Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the Kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the Kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest; in Thine hand is the good; surely, Thou hast power over all things.
- Thou makest the night to enter into the day and Thou makest the dat to enter into the night, and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from the living, and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure.
Introduction
The two verses do have a sort of connection with the preceding talk about the People of the Book, and especially the Jews. They were earlier threatened with the chastisements of this world and the hereafter. It was a part of that chastisement that God deprived them of their kingdom, and they were inflicted by abasement and humiliation up to the Day of Resurrection; also they lost so many lives and their rule was short of sovereignty.
Apart from that, the main theme of the chapter, as was mentioned in the beginning, is to show that the creation and all its affairs are totally in the hands of God; He is the Master of the Kingdom, He gives Kingdom, honor and good to whomsoever He pleases; and takes away the Kingdom, honor and good from whomsoever He pleases.
The verses are, thus, in total conformity with the theme of the chapter.
Commentary
قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتَنْزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَنْ تَشَاءُ ۖ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ ۖ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ ٢٦
(3:26) Say: “O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the Kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the Kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest; in Thine hand is the good; surely, Thou hast power over all things.
The verse advises the believer to seek refuge with God—in Whose hand is all the good and all the power—in order that he may remain unaffected by baseless ideas of the hypocrites, the polytheists and the People of the Book, the groups who were under the illusion that they had the kingdom and honors in their hands and that in this way they were independent of God! Such thoughts were their undoing; they were totally lost and ruined because of this illusion. The believer should steer clear of such ideas and should present himself with humility before God Who bestows good and gives sustenance without measure to whomsoever He pleases. The meaning of al-milk (property, possession) is known to, and understood by, all; and we recognize it as a lawful concept and reality.
“Possession” is of two kinds:
Real Possession: It is the ability inherent in a creature, for example, man, to dispose, manage and manipulate another thing in any way he likes. For example, a man may use or not use his eyesight, depending on his choice; he may use his hand in getting hold of a thing or letting it go; and so on. There exists between such a possessor and such a property a real, unchangeable and untransferable relationship; a relationship that makes the property dependent on the possessor for its very existence—it cannot be separated from the possessor without being destroyed. In the above example, the eye or the hand cannot be removed from the man without losing its usefulness and even its existence in the process.
In this category comes the possession and ownership, which belongs to God, of this universe with all its big and small components, as well as of all its affairs. He has the right, authority and power to do with it, and in it, as He pleases.
Conventional Possession: It is the possession based on man-made convention; the ability of, let us say, a man to dispose and manage a thing, as he likes—the authority based on the convention laid down by wise men to achieve the society’s aims. They looked at the plane of creation and found it replete with real possession and its effects; so they invented a similar institution for the plane of civilization and laid down the system of the conventional possession for the society. Their goal was to obtain benefits from the world’s provisions similar to those a real owner gets from his real possession. This relationship between a conventional owner and his property is not a real thing; it is just an abstract idea based on society’s convention; and that is why such an ownership, unlike the real one, may be transferred to another person through trade, gift, inheritance etc.
al-Mulk (kingdom) too is a sort of al-milk (possession) inasmuch as the king or ruler owns what the people of a country do own; he manages and disposes what the people have in their possession, without there occurring any clash between their management and his, between their will and his. It is in fact an ownership over ownership—the king’s ownership being vertically above the public’s; in the same way as, for example, a master owns his slave and also all that is owned by the slave.
The kingdom too, being a sort of possession, is divided into two categories: the real and the conventional.
God is the absolute Owner of every thing; His is the absolute Lordship and absolute management; He is the Creator of every thing and God of every thing. He says: That is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of every thing; there is no god but He (); whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His (). There are numerous verses showing that whatever is called a “thing” exists because of God, is dependent in its quiddity and existence on Him; it cannot stand without Him. Nothing can prevent God from disposing and managing a thing in any way He pleases; and as we explained earlier, it is the real possession.
And He is also the absolute King of the creation, because He is its absolute Owner. There is a system of ownership pervading the universe—the causes own their effects; every thing owns its active faculties and powers; those faculties and powers own their activities. For example, man owns all his limbs, organs and faculties like the eyes and ears; and the eyes and ears own their faculties of sight and hearing. As mentioned above, God owns every thing; therefore, He owns every owner as well as all his (or its) possessions; and this is what is called the Kingship. He is therefore the absolute King of all the creation. He has said: to Him belongs the Kingdom, and to Him is due (all) praise (); … with a most Powerful King (); there are numerous such verses. Needless to say, it is the real possession and kingships.
As for the conventional possession and kingship, this too actually belongs to God. God is the conventional Owner too, because it is He Who bestows the ownership to every thing which owns any thing. He could not do so unless He Himself did own that thing; other wise it would have looked as if He was bestowing a thing He did not own to someone who could not own! God says: and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given to you … (). Also, He is the conventional King, because He is the Law-giver and the Ruler, Who regulates, by His order, all the things which the people own, just as the kings regulate the financial affairs of their subjects. God says: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of men, the King, of men (); And He gives you all that you ask Him; and if you count Allah’s bounties, you will not be able to compute them (); and spend out of what He has made you to be successors of (); And what reason have you that you should not spend in Allah’s way? And Allah’s is the inheritance of the heavens and the earth (); To whom belongs the kingdom this day? To Allah, the One, the Subduer [of all] (). The verses show that God owned all that is in our hands before it came in our possession, and He continues to own it even when it belongs to us, and He will remain its owner (or let us say, Inheritor) when we are gone. His Kingship and ownership remains unaffected throughout.
It appears from the above that the words, “O God, Master of the Kingdom,” point to the following three themes:
First: To God belongs every kingdom; He is the Owner of the Kingdom. In other words, He is the King of the kings; He gives every king his kingdom, every ruler his rule; He says: … because Allah had given him the kingdom (); and We have given them a grand kingdom ().
Second: The Divine name “God,” precedes the epithet, “Master of the Kingdom”; this arrangement explains the basis of His Kingship; He is the Master of the Kingdom because He is God, Great is His Majesty!
Third: “The Kingdom” here refers to its both kinds—the real and the conventional. (And God knows better!) The matters mentioned in the first verse (Thou givest the Kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the Kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest) refer to various aspects of the conventional kinship; while the next verse refers to the affairs of the real kingship. God is, therefore, the absolute Master of the Kingdom.
Thou givest the Kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the Kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest: The statement is unrestricted and thus covers every kingdom, no matter whether it is obtained legally or illegally, nor whether it is based on justice or injustice. (We have explained this subject under the verse ; … because Allah .has given him the kingdom.) The kingdom, per se, is one of the bounties of God; it has the potential of doing good in, and improving, the human society. Man, by his very nature, loves to rule and dominate over others. A kingship, which falls into the hands of an undeserving person, is disliked and condemned, not because it is a kingship, but because it has been captured by one who has no right to it, (example, when someone usurps it through coup d’etat), or because of his bad character, injustice and oppression. This second reason is, in a way, another facet of the first.
To sum it up, if the king or the ruler is good, able and just, then the kingdom is a bounty of God for him. On the other hand, if he is undeserving and undesirable, then for him it is an affliction and trial. In either case, it is attributed to God, and is a means of trial, by which God tests His servants—the ruler and the ruled.
We have described earlier somewhere that when the Qur’an attaches the proviso of “God’s pleasure,” as in this verse, it does not mean that God’s actions are done without a reason or without an aim. This proviso is a reiteration that God’s power and His will are supreme; that God is not under any compulsion to do or not to do any particular work; nobody can oblige Him in any way; whatever He does, it is done according to His absolute will and power, and not because someone compels Him to do so. Nevertheless, all His actions are done and all His decrees issued for one purpose: the good and well-being of His servants.
… and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest: al-ʿIzz (to be hard to get; to be difficult to obtain). We say for a rare book or thing that it is ʿazīz al-wujūd; a man having a high prestige in his tribe, country or nation is called ʿazīz al-qawm, because it is difficult to subdue or overpower him. Then it was used for all types of difficulties; it is said yaʿizzu ʿalayya kadhā (it is hard for me to; it grieves me to). God says: … grievous to him is your falling into distress … (). Also, it is used for overpowering. There is a proverb: man ʿazza bazza (he who vanquishes, takes the booty). God says: … and he has prevailed against me in discourse (). But the basic meaning in all these usages is the same.
Opposite to it is al-dhull (to be easy to get or subdue—by real or supposed overpowering). God says: And abasement and humiliation were brought down over them (); and lower unto them the wing of humility out of compassion (); … humble before the believers … (). The words translated as “abasement,” “humility” and “humble” are various derivatives of al-dhull.
al-ʿIzzah (exaltation; might; honor) is an inseparable attribute of the absolute Kingship of God. Whoever, other than God, possesses any thing he gets it is because God has given him its ownership; whoever gets kingship, it is because God gives him that kingdom. Therefore, real honor and exaltation belong only to God; whatever honor is enjoyed by others, it is but a gift bestowed by God. He says: Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah (); … and to Allah belongs the might and to His Messenger and to the believers … (). This is the true honor, real might. What others have got is only abasement in the guise of might, humiliation behind the mask of honor. God says: Nay! those who disbelieve are in [self-] exaltation and opposition (). Then to show that self-exaltation is just an allusion, God immediately reminds them: How many did We destroy before them of the generations, then they cried while the time of escaping had passed away ().
Abasement and dishonor, being the opposite of might and honor, are governed by the opposite factors. Everything, other than God, by itself is abase and without any honor—except him who is exalted by God; and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest.
… in Thine hand is the good; surely Thou hast power over all things: al-Khayr (the good) basically connotes ‘selection’. We call a thing khayr (good) when we compare it with another thing and choose it—thus it is khayr (good) because it is the chosen one, the selected on. And why did we select it? Because it was more suitable for the purpose we had in mind. In other words, this thing is good because it is a means to obtain the ultimate good, that is, the purpose aimed at. The real “good.”is that which is desired for itself. It is called good because it is chosen when compared with other things.
The word “good” carries a connotation of favorable comparison with other things. This has given rise to a misunderstanding that it is an adjective of comparative degrees, and that originally it was akhyar. But it is not so; it is not in comparative degree, although its root meaning carries a comparative value, and therefore it is often used as a substitute for “better,” “more exalted” and so on. We say: Zayd is afḍal (more exalted) than ʿAmr; the same meaning is conveyed when we say: Zayd is khayrun than ʿAmr. We may say: Zayd afḍaluhumā, or we may change it to Zayd khayruhumā both sentences will convey the same meaning: Zayd is the better of the two. But this interchangeability of the two words does not make al-khayr an adjective of comparative degree; otherwise, it would have been conjugated on the paradigm of comparative degree, that is, on the paradigm of aftḍal, afāḍil, fuḍlā, fuḍlayāt. But khayr is not conjugated like that. Instead we say: khayr, akhyār, khayrah, khayrāt like shaykh, ashyākh, shaykhah, shaykhāt (old man, old men, old woman, old women). Therefore, it is a al-ṣifat al-mushabbahah (adjective denoting an inseparable attribute).
Moreover, khayr is also used in places where the context does not allow any comparison. For example, Say: What is with Allah is better (khayrun) than sport … (). Now there is no good in the sport so that it could be said, “better than sport.” What it actually means is: What is with God is good, and the sport is not good. (Those who think that the word al-khayr, is in comparative degree, say that in the sentences like the above, the word looses its comparative value. Such explanations need no comment!) The fact is that al-khayr gives a connotation of selection and choosing, and generally, but not necessarily, the thing which is not selected also has some good in it.
The above discourse shows that God is “good” absolutely and without any reservation or condition, because He it is Who is the ultimate goal and destination of every thing. Yet, the Qur’an has never used this word as a Divine name, although it has been used as an adjective referring to God: and Allah is better and more abiding (); are sundry lords better or Allah the One, the Supreme? ().
Of course, the word, khayrun (better, best) has been used as the first construct of those Divine names which are in genitive case; for example: and Allah is the best (khayr) of sustainers (); and He is the best of the judges (); and He is the best of deciders (); and He is the best of the helpers (); and Allah is the best of planners (); and Thou art the best of deciders (); and Thou art the best of the forgivers (); and Thou art the best of inheritors (); and Thou art the best to cause to alight (); and Thou art the best of the merciful ones ().
The reason for this fine distinction in usage is not difficult to understand. As the word, al-khayr, has a connotation of selection and option, it was not used as a name of God—it would not have been proper to compare Him in a general way with others, because all are subservient to Him. But there was no such difficulty in using the word as an adjective or as a relative description in a genitive case.
The sentence, “in Thine hand is the good,” has a semantic value of restriction: the definite article in “the good” makes it cover all and every good; and the adverbial clause of place, “in Thine hand,” coming at the beginning of the sentence, puts all the good exclusively into the hand of God. The meaning therefore is: Every good, which anyone may ever desire, is only under Thy management and control; it is Thou Who gives it to whomsoever Thou pleasest.
The sentence gives the reason of the preceding ones, which mention His giving the kingdom and honor to whomsoever He pleases and taking them away from whomsoever He pleases. It explains the particular, that is, bestowing kingdom and honor, with the help of a general attribute, “good” which is an all-encompassing term and covers other bounties too. God controls every “good,” and kingdom and honor are two of those good things; therefore, it is God who bestows them to whomsoever He pleases.
The taking away of the kingdom and abasing are ‘good’ in the same way as giving the kingdom and exalting are. It is true that they are “evil”; but what is evil? It is absence of good. Taking away the kingdom is the same as not giving the kingdom; abasing is the same as not exalting. To say, God has the power to give it, is the same as saying, He has the power to withhold it. When every good emanates from Him, then every withholding of the good must necessarily emanate from Him. What we have to be careful about is that we should never attribute to Him any thing which is beneath His sublime sanctity; for example, we cannot say that the sins, errors and improprieties of the servants emanate from Him. Nevertheless, we may say that God leaves the sinners to do as they wish, and that He does not help such servants. (We have explained this matter before.)
Let us look at this matter from another angle: There are good and evil in the sphere of creation, like giving the kingdom and taking it away, exalting someone and abasing him and so on. The good, at this level, is a positive reality, and there is no difficulty in attributing it to God. And the evil, at this level, is just not giving the good to someone, and even here, there is no difficulty in attributing it to God; He is the only Master of every “good”; if He gives to someone from that good, then He should be thanked; if, on the other hand, He withholds it from someone, then nobody has any right to ask Him why, or to compel Him to give it. Whatever He does, is done for the general well-being of His creatures, for the good of the system which pervades every single component of the universe.
Likewise, there are good and evil in the sphere of legislation—various kinds of obedience and disobedience. Man is responsible for these actions, inasmuch as they are done by his own choice and will. Certainly, such actions can never be attributed to other than the man himself. It is this relationship between man and his actions which makes it possible to say, this is good, or, that is bad. If man had no freedom of will and choice, none of his deeds could be termed as good or evil. And these deeds cannot be attributed to God, except in the sense that He helps (in good deeds) or withholds His help (from evil ones), according to the reasons demanding such help or its withdrawal.
It shows that the good, all of it, is in the hand of God, and all the affairs of the universe—gain and loss; good and evil—emanate from that good.
An exegete has written:
“There is a deleted by implied word in the sentence, in Thine hand is the good; according to him, it actually says, in Thine hand is the good and evil. He gives the example of another verse: and He has given you garments to preserve you from the heat (), in which ‘and cold,’ is implied.”
We understand the motive of the above assertion. He wanted to keep his distance from the Muʿtazilites. The Muʿtazilites do not attribute an evil to God, not even indirectly. Of course, their stand was wrong and we have already dealt with this topic in a previous volume. But it does not justify such strange implied additions to the speech of God; it is astonishing to see someone having the audacity to hazard such explanations in respect of the Qur’anic verses.
Thou hast power over all things: It shows why all good is in God’s hand. He has absolute and exclusive power over every thing; it follows that anyone who has got any power, gets it by the authority of God. If not so, then that person’s power would be outside the purview of God’s power; in that case, God would not have power over all things. But we know that He has absolute and all-encompassing power; and therefore, every imaginable good is in His power. Consequently, all the good, that emanates from others’ hands, is, in fact, bestowed by God. In short, the good, per se, is in His hands only. It was this exclusiveness to which the preceding sentence had referred: “in Thine hand is the good.”
تُولِجُ اللَّيْلَ فِي النَّهَارِ وَتُولِجُ النَّهَارَ فِي اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَتُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَتُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ ۖ وَتَرْزُقُ مَنْ تَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ ٢٧
(3:27) Thou makest the night to enter into the day and Thou makest the day to enter into the night, and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from the living, and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure.
al-Wulūj is to enter; its transitive is al-īlāj (to make enter, to insert).
Apparently, the above sentences refer to the continuously changing lengths of days and nights, throughout the year, depending on the latitude of a region and the position of the earth vis-a-vis the sun. In the northern hemisphere, from mid-winter to mid-summer, days become longer and longer and nights shorter and shorter—it is the entering of the day into the night. And from mid-summer to mid-winter, nights become longer and longer and days shorter and shorter and it is the entering of the night into the day. The position in the southern hemisphere is just opposite. When the nights are longer in one hemisphere, they are shorter in the other; the same happens with the days. In this way, God is always making the day to enter into the night, and the night to enter into the day.
As for the two imaginary points of the north and the south poles, and the imaginary latitude of the equator, it seems that the days and the nights remain equal throughout the year. But in reality changes occur at those points too.
… and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from the living: That is, God brings forth a believer from the loin of an unbeliever, and an unbeliever from the loin of a believer. God has named belief as life and light, and He calls disbelief as death and darkness. For example, He says: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people, like him whose likeness is that of one in utter darkness whence he cannot come forth ().
The sentences may also be explained in a general way: God creates living organism, like vegetable and animal, from the earth which has no sense or feeling; and then gives death to the living things returning them to the earth. The Qur’anic verses almost clearly say that He changes the living into dead and the dead into living. He says: … then We caused it to grow into another creation; so blessed be Allah, the best of creators. Then after that you will most surely die (). There are other verses having the same connotation.
Some scientists say: The life emanated from some germs, evolving from one germ into another, and from that into a third and so on; that it did not spring up from senseless matter. The reason for this hypothesis lay in their belief that the universe came into being by itself, it was not created. But experiments show that the living germs too are overcome by death. Thus the life changes into death, establishing a correlation between the two. (We shall further explain this subject somewhere else.)
However, this verse, “Thou makest the night … bringest forth the dead from the living,” describes God’s management of His real possession; as the preceding verse, “Thou givest the Kingdom … abasest whom Thou pleasest,” shows His management of His conventional possession.
The two verses run parallel to each other: One describing four aspects of His management which stand face to face with the other four described by the other. The former mentions giving the kingdom and taking it away; the latter subtends it with the description of making the night to enter into the day and making the day to enter into the night. Then the former talks about exalting and abasing; and the latter speaks of bringing forth the living from the dead and vice versa. This juxtaposition provides a refreshing insight into the Qur’anic eloquence.
To give a kingdom to someone is to let him impose his authority over his compatriots; thus, to a certain extent, the freedom of the people is lost into the authority of the ruler. It is not dissimilar to making the night dominate over the day; the night (comparable to subjugation) takes away certain portions of the day (comparable to the freedom of the people).
The opposite is true for taking away the kingdom vis-a-vis making the day to enter into the night.
To exalt someone is similar to giving him a new life; he would have remained unknown and unrecognized, if God had not bestowed honor upon him. That is why it has been put parallel to bringing forth the living from the dead.
Likewise, abasing and bringing forth the dead from the living stand face to face. Honor is life; and dishonor, death.
Also, God, in His Book, describes the day as having a manifest sign, and the night as having one blotted away; He says: … then We have made the sign of the night blotted away and We have made the sign of the day manifest … (). Looking at human society from this point of view, establishment of a kingdom and its downfall are mirrors of the manifestation of the day and the effacement of the night respectively.
In the same way, He counts life as the fountain-head of knowledge and power; and death deprives man of these faculties; He says: Dead [are they)], not living, and they know not when they shall be raised (). And He has exclusively reserved the honor and might to Himself, and to His Messenger and the believers: and to Allah belongs the might and to His Messenger and to the believers (). And it is these who, according to the Qur’an, are alive. Consequently, might and respect is the mirror of life, and humiliation and abasement represents death. It is now clear how giving of kingdom and taking it away as well as exalting and abasing (of the former verse) run parallel to making the night to enter into the day, and making the day to enter into the night as well as bringing forth the living from the dead, and the dead from the living (in the latter) respectively.
The concluding sentence of the latter verse, (and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure) likewise stands face to face with the concluding sentence of the former (in Thine hand is good …), as the following paragraph makes it clear.
… and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure: Apparently it gives the reason for the foregoing factors; the conjunctive, “and,” is, therefore, for explanation; and it explains the afore-mentioned particular actions in term of a general faculty. The meaning: God manages His creatures in the foregoing way because He is the Sustainer, Who gives sustenance to whom He pleases, without measure.
That is why we said earlier that it stands face to face with the concluding sentence of the former verse; because, “in Thine hand is the good; surely, Thou has power over all things” also explains the reason of the actions mentioned therein.
Discourse
The discussion “Sustenance in the Qur’an” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Examining Narrations
- ʿAbdul-Aʿlā (mawlā, client of the Āl [tribe of] Sām) has narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh. He says: “I told him: ‘Say O Allah; Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest and takest away the kingdom from whomsoever Thou pleasest. Is it not that God gave the kingdom to the Umayyads?’ He said: ‘It is not as you think. Surely God Mighty and Great is He! gave the kingdom to us, and the Umayyads usurped it; it is as though a cloth belongs to a man, and another person takes it away; yet the cloth does not belong to the man who took it away.’ ” (al-Kāfī)
Author’s comment: al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated a similar tradition through Dāwūd b. Farqad from Abū ʿAbdillāh.
We have already explained that giving the kingdom is of two kinds:
(1) Giving it at the level of creation: Such a kingdom means that the king enjoys an over-riding authority over the people and they are subdued by his power—it makes no difference whether his rule is based on justice or not. For example, God says referring to Nimrod: … because Allah had given him the kingdom (). The effect of such a kingdom is that the king’s words are obeyed, his command carried out and his will enforced. (We shall later explain what a kingdom on the level of creation really entails.)
(2) Giving it at the level of legislation, that is, decreeing that he is a king whose obedience is obligatory. For example, God says: Surely Allah has raised Ṭālūt to be a king over you (). The effect of this type of kingdom is obligation of the people to obey the king’s command and confirmation of his mastership of the people. Such a kingdom is always based on justice; and is liked and praised by God.
Now the kingdom the Umayyads had got was of the former type, that is, the one decreed at the level of creation, with its accompanying effect of overall authority on the people. But the questioner was confused; and erroneously thought that it had the effect of the other type of kingdom—he assumed that the Umayyads were entitled to the obedience of the people, that they were the rightful masters of the ummah, and had got a lawful and praiseworthy status in the eyes of God. The Imam told him that such a kingdom (on the level of legislation) did not belong to the Umayyads—it belonged to the rightful successors of the Prophet, that is, the Imams, and only they were entitled to the unquestioning obedience of the ummah.
In other words, the same kingdom which in the Umayyad’s hands was devoid of every virtue, would have been praiseworthy if it were in the Imams’ hands. In the Umayyads’ hands it was totally condemnable, because they had usurped it from its rightful owners. Nevertheless, its bestowal would be attributed to God as a plan to give them enough rope to hang themselves, as He did in the case of Nimrod and Pharaoh.
The Umayyads themselves had misunderstood the connotations of this verse, and thought that their kingdom was the sign of Divine approval of their rule, as may be seen in Kitāb al-Irshād (of al-Mufīd) where it mentions the events after the martyrdom of Imam al-Ḥusayn and his companions: al-Mufīd says: “When the heads (of the martyrs) were put before Yazīd and among them was the head of al-Ḥusayn, Yazīd recited: “We will split even the skull of a man we held in great respect; But they were disobedient and oppressive.”
Again al-Mufīd says: “Then (Yazīd) looked towards the people of his court and said: ‘Verily, this (al-Ḥusayn) used to boast against me and say: “My father is better than the father of Yazīd, and my mother is better than his mother, and my grandfather is better than his grandfather, and I am better than him.” As for his claim that his father was better than the father of Yazīd, indeed my father disputed with his father and God decreed in favor of my father against his father. And as for his saying that his mother was better than Yazīd’s mother, by my life he was right; certainly Fāṭimah, daughter of the Messenger of God was better than my mother. And as regards his saying that his grandfather was better than my grandfather, no one believing in God and the Last Day can say that he is better than Muḥammad. And as for his saying that he was better than me, perhaps he had not read this verse: Say: O Allah, Master of the Kingdom! Thou givest the kingdom to whomsoever Thou pleasest …” ’ ”
And Zaynab, daughter of ʿAlī (peace be on him and her) rebutted his claims using the same explanation as al-Ṣādiq did in this tradition. al-Sayyid b. Ṭāwūs and others have reported her reply, in which she, inter alia, said: “Do you think, O Yazīd! that—just because you cut us off from the regions of the earth and the horizons of the sky, so that we are being held like the captives—we are abased before God? Or that you are exalted before Him? Or that it has happened because of your great importance with Him? So (now) you behave arrogantly and look around hilariously and cheerfully, when you find the world in your bondage and (your) affairs well in order, and when our kingdom and our authority is totally usurped by you! Take it easy! Don’t be hasty!! Have you forgotten the words of God: And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement ().”
- It is reported in Majmaʿ al-bayān about the words of God, and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead …: “It is said that it means: Thou bringest forth the believer from the unbeliever and Thou bringest forth the unbeliever from the believer.” Further, it is written: “And this meaning has been narrated from Abū Jaʿfar (al-Bāqir) and Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq), peace be on them.”
Author’s comment: A nearly similar tradition has been narrated by al-Ṣadūq from al-ʿAskarī.
- Ibn Marduwayh has narrated through the chain of Abū ʿUthmān al-Nahdī from Ibn Masʿūd or Salmān from the Prophet about the words, He brings forth the living from the dead and He brings forth the dead from the living, that he said: “The believer from the unbeliever and the unbeliever from the believer.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
- It is reported through the foregoing chain from Salmān al-Fārisī that he said: “The Messenger of God said: ‘When God created Adam, He took out his offspring, then He took a handful in His right hand and said: “These are the people of the garden; and I don’t care.” And He took a handful in the other (hand) and came into it every bad (person); and He said: “These are the people of the Fire; and I don’t care.” Then He mixed one (group) with the other. Thus comes out an unbeliever from a believer, and a believer from an unbeliever; and that is (the meaning of) His words, Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from the living.” (ibid.)
Author’s comment: Several exegetes have narrated this meaning from Salmān, with the chain of narrators disconnected. The tradition is one of those related to the “tiny particles” and the covenant; and, God willing, we shall explain them in a more suitable place.
Muḥammad b. John narrated from Aḥmad b. Muḥammad and several of our companions, from Sahl b. Ziyād, from Ibn Maḥbūb, from Abū Ḥamzah al-Thumālī that Abū Jaʿfar said: “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and his progeny, said in (his) last pilgrimage: ‘Verily, the Trustworthy Spirit (that is, Gabriel) has revealed to my heart that no soul was to die until it had completed its sustenance. Therefore, be on guard against (the wrath of) God, and act decently in seeking (the sustenance). Even if you feel that a sustenance is late in coming to you, it should not induce you to seek it through some thing that is a sin against God; for surely God has distributed the sustenance among His creation, with lawful means, and He has not distributed it with unlawful means. Therefore, whoever fears God and remains patient, his sustenance comes to him from lawful means; and whoever tears apart the curtain (put by) God and takes it (that is, the sustenance) through unlawful means, his lawful sustenance is reduced (proportionately) and (also) he will be answerable for that.’ ” (al-Kāfī)
ʿAlī said: “O son of Adam! Livelihood is of two kinds: the livelihood which you seek and the livelihood which seeks you; if you do not reach it, it will come to you. Therefore, do not impose a year’s worry on your one day’s worry. Whatever you get every day should be enough for you for the day. If you have a whole year of your life even then God, the Sublime, will give you every next day what He has destined as your share. If you do not have a year in your life then why should you worry for what is not for you. No seeker will reach your livelihood before you nor will anyone overpower you in the matter of that livelihood. Similarly, what has been destined as your share will not be delayed for you?” (Nahj al-balāghah)
Ibn Ṭarīf narrated from Ibn ʿUlwān, from Jaʿfar, that his father (al-Bāqir) said: “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and his progeny, said: ‘Verily, the sustenance comes down from the heaven to the earth (abundantly) like the number of the rain-drops, to every soul according to what has been allotted to it. Yet, God is very Munificent; so you should beseech God for His munificence.’ ” (Qurb al-asnād)
Author’s comment: Numerous traditions have been narrated of the same connotation. We shall discuss, God willing, in the Chapter of Hūd (ch. 11), the traditions of sustenance in detail.
Discourse
The discussions “An Essay on Kingdom and its Place in Society”; “A Philosophical Discourse on Attribution of Kingdom and other Abstracts Concepts to God” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.
This explanation is correct, as far as it goes. But another explanation, given by Maurice Bucaille, seems more comprehensive:
“[The astronauts have seen] how the Sun permanently lights up (except in the case of an eclipse) the half of the Earth’s surface that is facing it, while the other half of the globe is in darkness. The Earth turns on its own axis and the lighting remains the same, so that an area in the form of a half-sphere makes one revolution around the Earth in twenty-four hours while the other half-sphere, that has remained in darkness, makes the same revolution in the same time. This perpetual rotation of night and day is quite clearly described in the Qur’an. It is easy for the human understanding to grasp this notion nowadays because we have the idea of the Sun’s (relative) immobility and the Earth’s rotation. This process of perpetual coiling, including the interpenetration of one sector by another is expressed in the Qur’an …” (The Bible, the Qur’an and Science; North American Publications, Indianapolis; 1979; p. 164.) (Trans.) ↩︎
That is, they wanted to avoid answering the question: How did a living cell evolve from a lifeless matter? How could the matter be the source of life when it had no life itself? (Trans.) ↩︎