Verses 7–9

Chapter 3: Āl-Imrān (The Family of Imrān) · Printed edition: Volume 5, pp. 21–114

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ ٧ رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا وَهَبْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ رَحْمَةً ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْوَهَّابُ ٨ رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ جَامِعُ النَّاسِ لِيَوْمٍ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُخْلِفُ الْمِيعَادَ ٩

7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book, of it there are some verses decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are ambiguous; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
8. Our Lord! Make not our hearts to deviate after Thou hast guided us [aright]; and grant us from Thee mercy; surely Thou art the most liberal Giver.
9. Our Lord! Surely Thou art the Gatherer of men on a day about which there is no doubt; surely Allah fails not [His] promise.

Commentary

(3:7) He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book, of it there are some verses decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are ambiguous; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book

In this verse, the verbal form al-inzāl (to send down all together) has been used, instead of al-tanzīl (to send down gradually) that was used in the verse 3. It is because this verse looks at the whole Book in its entirety, and describes some especial characteristics of the complete Book. It discloses that the Book on the whole contains some decisive verses and some ambiguous ones, the import of which may be known by returning them to the decisive ones. As the Book is here looked at as one entity, the use of the verbal form al-inzāl was more appropriate.

…of it there are some verses decisive (muḥkamāt), they are the basis of the Book, and others are ambiguous (mutashābihāt): al-Muḥkamāt (translated here as decisive) is derived from the root word ḥ-k-m; the root implies that a thing is so protected that nothing can pervert or break it or interfere with it. Some infinitive verbs made from it are al-iḥkām (to make precise, to confirm, to strengthen), al-taḥkīm (to arbitrate) and al-ḥukm (to judge); some other words are al-ḥikmah (perfect knowledge, wisdom) and al-ḥakamah (bit of a horse’s bridle). All these meanings have the elements of protection and preciseness in them. Some people say that the root word gives the meaning of protection and reformation.

al-Iḥkām of the verses means making them so precise that no ambiguity remains therein, contrary to al-mutashābihāt (ambiguous) ones.

Before going further, it should be mentioned here that in various places, God has described all the verses as being al-muḥkamāt; and again the whole Book has been called al-mutashābih. But the words have been used in those verses for meanings other than “decisive” and “ambiguous” respectively. God says: [This is] a Book, whose verses were confirmed (uḥkimat); then they were divided, from one Wise All-aware (). This verse uses the verbal form of al-iḥkām (to confirm, to make precise); but it goes on to mention “division”; this association shows that the verb al-iḥkām (to confirm) refers to that state when the Book, before its revelation, was an indivisible one; it points to that “confirmation” and stability which was found in it before it was subjected to particularization for the purpose of revelation. This confirmation is an attribute of the whole Book; and obviously it is something different from al-iḥkām (decisiveness), mentioned in the verse under discussion, which is an attribute of only a part of the Book—those verses that are unambiguous in their meaning.

In other words, when God divided the verses of the Book in two categories, the decisive (that is, unambiguous) and ambiguous, it was self-evident that the preciseness and decisiveness mentioned in this verse was not the same preciseness and confirmation which was attributed to the whole Book in verse .

Likewise, God says: Allah has revealed the best discourse, a Book conforming (mutashābihan), in its various parts, oft-repeated … (). Here the whole Book has been called mutashābihan (conforming); so we know that in this verse it means something other than mutashābihāt (ambiguous), mentioned in the verse under discussion, in which only a part of the Book is given this name.

The decisive, unambiguous verses have been called umm al-kitāb (translated here as the “basis of the Book”). al-Umm literally means a thing to which another thing returns; in which it takes refuge. That is why the mother is called al-umm. The decisive and unambiguous verses have been given this title because the ambiguous verses return to them. One part of the Book (that is, the ambiguous verses) returns to the other part, (that is, to the unambiguous ones). The possessive case “the basis of the Book” does not imply that this basis is something different from the Book, as is the case, for example, in “the mother of the children”—the mother is different from the children. Rather it denotes a portion or part, as in the phrase, “women of the nation”—women are a part of the nation; in the same way the basis of the Book is a part or portion of the Book. The Book contains some verses that are the basis of the other verses. “Basis” is singular; it shows that there is no difference in the unambiguous decisive verses; all are united and well-connected.

The verse contrasts the decisive verses with the ambiguous ones— which it calls mutashābihāt. al-Tashābuh means similarity of different things in some of their characteristics and conditions. As mentioned above, God has praised the Qur’an with this word in the verse: Allah has revealed [to thee] the best discourse, a Book conforming (mutashābihan) in its various parts, oft-repeated, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord … (). Obviously, it refers to the fact that there is a consistency in the style of the Qur’an; eloquent composition and elegant modality, coupled with unveiling of realities and guidance to unalloyed truth (as the words used in this verse show) are the common and ever-present features of the Book.

But al-tashābuh mentioned in the verse under discussion means something different. The verse contrasts such verses with the decisive ones that are the basis of the Book, and then goes on to say that those in whose heart there is perversity follow such verses seeking to mislead people and to give them their own interpretation. This context makes it clear that the adjective mutashābihāt, refers here to ambiguous verses whose connotation cannot be decided by the hearer just by hearing; his mind remains undecided between one meaning and the other; this continues until he refers to the decisive verses and only then is able to fix the true connotation and semantic value of the ambiguous one. At this stage, the ambiguous verse too becomes decisive and unambiguous but with the aid of decisive verse; while the decisive verse is decisive by itself.

For example, when man first hears the verse, The Beneficent Allah firmly sat (istawā) upon the Throne (), he is unable to decide whether these words have been used in their literal sense. Then he refers to other verses like: nothing is like a likeness of Him (); then only he understands that “firmly sitting on the Throne” means mastery over the kingdom and dominance over the creatures; that it does not mean sitting in a place or on a thing, because it is an attribute of body and God is not a body, because nothing is like Him. Thus, by returning that ambiguous verse to a decisive one, he will translate it as, “The Beneficent God is firm in power.”

Another example: When the verse: Looking to their Lord (), is returned to the verse: Visions comprehend Him not, and He comprehends [all] visions (), it becomes clear that “looking at” in the former does not mean “seeing” with the eyes.

In the same way, when an abrogated verse is returned to the abrogating one, it is known that the order given in the former was for a limited time until the latter was revealed. And so on.

This is the meaning of “decisive” and “ambiguous,” as an average man may easily understand, looking at the whole verse together. At least this verse is surely “decisive,” even if all others be not.

Just think of the troubles that would crop up if this verse is said to be ambiguous: First, the whole Qur’an would be ambiguous, as no other verse has clearer meaning; second, the categories (decisive and ambiguous) mentioned in it would be meaningless; third, the remedy shown in the words, “they are the basis of the Book,” would be useless; fourth, the words of God: A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Qur’an for a people who know, a herald of good news and a warner … (), would not be true; fifth, the argument contained in the verse: Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (), would not signify anything. Add to it all those verses that say that the Qur’an is a light, a guidance, a clarification, an explanation and an open reminder, and so on, that shall be deprived of meaning if this verse under discussion is said to be ambiguous.

No one can find a single verse in the Qur’an whose words or phrases are bereft of meaning. Every verse points to its true meaning—either it is the only meaning understood by an Arabic speaking person, or is one of several meanings which may be inferred from it. When a verse is ambiguous and can be interpreted in more than one way, the true meaning is surely one of those interpretations. The true meaning cannot go against the accepted principles of the Qur’an, like the existence of the Creator, His Oneness, coming of the prophets, promulgation of the law, the Day of Judgment and so on. It conforms with those principles, and is based on them; and those principles decide which of the possible meanings is the true one. Thus, some parts of the Qur’an explain the others; some verses are the basis to which the others are returned.

When such a reader shall read this verse, “of it there are some verses decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are ambiguous,” he will certainly know that the decisive are those verses that contain the accepted principles of religion, and ambiguous are those whose meaning can be decided through these principles.

Question: In every subject there are some principles and some adjuncts; the latter are invariably always referred to the former. It is true in other writings as much as about the Qur’an. But it does not create ambiguity in other books. So why in the Qur’an?

Reply: The Qur’an contains two sets of realities, and there is possibility of ambiguity in each:

First: There are high spiritual and metaphysical realities that are beyond the scope of perception or matter. A man of average understanding, on hearing such verse, is perplexed whether the words have been used in their literal (that is often physical) meaning, or denote something higher. For example, when he hears the words: Most surely your Lord is on watch (); And your Lord comes … (), his mind races at first to the literal senses of these words, which if accepted, would show that God is a body! The uncertainty is removed when he refers these verses to the Qur’anic principles which show that God is not a body, and that matter and actions and reactions connected with matter cannot be attributed to Him.

This type of ambiguity occurs in all metaphysical and spiritual talks and writings; it is not peculiar to the Qur’an. Other scriptures—the unaltered parts—when talking of high spiritual things face the same difficulty. Even philosophy suffers from this handicap. To this fact, the Qur’an refers in the following verses: He sends down water from the heavens, then the valleys flow according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam; and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of [making] ornaments or apparatus arises a scum like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it remains in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables (); Surely We have made it an Arabic Qur’an, so that you may understand. And surely it is in the Original of the Book with Us, truly elevated, full of wisdom ().

Second: There are social legislations and other rules. Some rules, when the reasons for which they were legislated were no longer valid, were abrogated. Moreover, the verses were revealed piecemeal. These two factors create ambiguity in such verses; and it is necessary to return the abrogated verses to the abrogating ones; and then the ambiguousness goes away.

…then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation: al-Zaygh is deviation; it is accompanied by anxiety and disquiet. The verse goes on to contrast such people with those who are firmly rooted in knowledge, who say: “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord.” It divides the people, so far as their behavior regarding the Qur’an is concerned, in two categories: There are they in whose hearts is deviation, who are worried and perturbed—they follow the ambiguous verses to mislead the people and to interpret the verses according to their own liking. And there are those who are firmly rooted in knowledge, with stable mind—they follow the decisive verses, and believes in the ambiguous ones but do not act upon them, and pray to God not to make their hearts deviate after guidance has come to them.

It shows that “following ambiguous verses” means to act upon them. They are condemned because they follow the ambiguous verses without returning (that is, referring) them to the decisive ones. Had they referred them to decisive verses before acting upon them, it would, in effect, have been acting upon the decisive verses; and they would have been free from reproach.

al-Fitnah (literally, mischief) means here to mislead the people. Making mischief and misleading are near in meaning. God says that they follow ambiguous verses so that they may mislead the people. Not only this—they want something even more grievous: They seek to acquire the knowledge of the interpretation of the Qur’an; their aim is to find everything from ambiguous verses, so that they would be independent of the decisive ones, and thus the foundation of the religion of God would be destroyed completely.

al-Taʾwīl is derived from al-awl (to return). al-Taʾwīl of an ambiguous verse is its “returning base” to which it is returned. al-Taʾwīl of the Qur’an is the source from which it gets its realities. For want of a better word, it is mostly translated as interpretation, final interpretation, or the end; although these words do not convey its true connotation. We shall try to lead the reader step by step to its real significance.

God has used the word al-taʾwīl in various places in the Qur’an:

(1) And certainly We have brought them a Book which We have made clear with knowledge, a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. Do they wait for aught but its final interpretation (taʾwīl)? On the day when its final interpretation (taʾwīl) comes about, those who neglected it before will says: Indeed the apostles of our Lord had brought the truth … ().

That is, what the messengers told their people was all truth: that God is their True Lord; that what they call upon besides God has no reality at all; that the prophethood is truth and the religion is truth; that God will surely raise those who are in graves; in short, all the information about the unseen, truth of which will be manifest on the Day of Resurrection.

Keeping in view this manifestation, it has been said that al-taʾwīl of a verse is the fact with which that verse conforms, and that it would be manifested later on; like the happenings on the Day of Judgment that would be in conformity with the informations given by the prophets and the Books.

But this explanation is not comprehensive. It covers only those verses that describe the Divine attributes and actions, and explain the events of the Day of Judgment. But many more verses have no “facts” that would manifest themselves later on: the verses containing law and rules—they give orders, not information, and thus have no facts to conform with; the ones describing what is a clear rational proposition, for example, many ethical teachings—their taʾwīl (in the proposed events) is within themselves, it is not to appear later; those narrating the stories of the prophets and past nations—their taʾwīl has already appeared, it is not to appear on the Day of Judgment. And the verse under discussion is talking about al-taʾwīl of the whole Book: Taʾwīlahu means the Book’s final interpretation. Clearly the suggested meaning of al-taʾwīl cannot be applied here, because, as described above, it is true for only a portion of the Book, not for the whole.

(2) And this Qur’an is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say: He has forged it? Say: Then bring a chapter like this and call whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful. Nay, they have rejected that of which they have no comprehensive knowledge, and its final interpretation has not yet come to them; even thus did those before them reject [the truth]; see then what was the end of the unjust ().

Here again al-taʾwīl has been attributed to the whole Book.

Someone has improved upon the definition of al-taʾwīl suggested in (1); he has said: al-taʾwīl is the real fact upon which the talk depends. If the talk contains an information, then the event or fact mentioned is its “interpretation”—it does not matter whether the events have already passed, like those of the prophets and past nations, or will be manifested in future, as concerning the verses describing the attributes, names and promises of God and all that is to happen on the Day of Judgment; and if it promulgates a law, then the benefit emanating from it is its “interpretation.” Look, for example, at the words of God: And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is good and the fairest in the end (). The original word, translated here as “in the end,” is taʾwīla. It shows that the “final interpretation” of giving full measure and weighing with true balance is the benefit accruing to the society from honest dealing.

But this explanation too is defective, as will be seen from the following clarifications.

First: The verse of measure and weight is clear on one point: the “final interpretation,” that is, the social benefit, depends on people’s doing what they have been told to do, that is, on their actually giving full measure and correct weight; those benefits would not occur merely by promulgating this rule. In other words, the final interpretation is a real fact (benefit to the society) that emanates from a real fact (measuring and weighing correctly).

Obviously, the “final interpretation” is a real fact; and the thing that “returns” to it, or, let us say, through which that final interpretation emanates is also a real fact—it is not only an information or order. When God says that the verses of the Book have “final interpretation,” it means that those verses narrate some real facts (as, for example, in the stories) or are concerned with actually existing practical matters (as, for example, in the verses promulgating laws), which, in their turn, have a final interpretation. This capability of having a final interpretation is not an attribute of the speech; it is the property of the subject matter of the speech.

Second: As explained earlier, al-taʾwīl literally means to return, or the returning base. But it is not every return or returning base, but a special type of it. A dependent returns to his principal, but the principal is not his “final interpretation”; all numbers return to “one,” but “one” is not their final interpretation.

To understand it more clearly let us look at the Qur’anic story of Moses and al-Khiḍr. He [al-Khiḍr] used the word al-taʾwīl twice when he told Moses: … now I will inform you of the interpretation of that with which you could not have patience (); This is the interpretation of that with which you could not have patience ().

What he explained to Moses was the true significance of his three actions which Moses had misjudged because of his unawareness of their real purposes.

The three events were as follows:

1. … until when they embarked in the boat he made a hole in it … ().
2. … until when they met a boy, he slew him ().
3. … until when they came to the people of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused to receive them as guests. Then they found in it a wall which was on the point of falling, so he set it upright ().

And this is how Moses misconstrued these events:

1. [Moses] said: Have you made a hole in it to drown its inmates? Certainly you have done a grievous thing ().
2. [Moses] said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done a horrible thing ().
3. [Moses] said: If you had pleased, you might certainly have taken a recompense for it ().

And the following are the “final interpretations” of them, as explained by al-Khiḍr:

1. As for the boat, it belonged to [some] poor men who worked on the river and I wished that I should damage it, and there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force ().
2. And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should oppress them by disobedience [to them] and disbelief [in Allah]. So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion ().
3. And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord … ().

Then he answered all the objection of Moses in a short sentence: And I did not do it of my own accord (ibid.).

It is now obvious that the “return” mentioned in these verses is just as a punishment given to a child “returns” to his character building—he is punished for the “purpose” of his reform. It is this type of “return” that is meant by al-taʾwīl in the above-mentioned verses. It does not mean that conformity which a true information has with its fact—as the sentence, Zayd came, has with the coming of Zayd.

For further clarification let us look at uses of this word in Chapter 12 (Joseph):

When Joseph said to his father: O my father! surely I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon—I saw them prostrating before me (); And he raised his parents upon the throne and they [all] fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the interpretation of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true … ().

In this instance, the dream he saw of the sun, the moon and eleven stars prostrating before him “returned” to the prostration of his parents and eleven brothers. But this “returning” was just as an allegory returns to the thing for which it is used.

The same is the case with the following verses:

And the king said: Surely I see eleven fat kine which seven lean ones devoured; and seven green ears and [seven] others dry; O Chiefs! explain to me my dream, if you can interpret the dream. They said: Confused dreams, and we do not know the interpretation of [such] dreams. And of the two [prisoners] he who had found deliverance and remembered after a long time said: I will inform you of its interpretation, so let me go. Joseph! O truthful one! explain to us seven fat kine which seven lean ones devoured, and seven green ears and [seven] others dry, that I may go back to the people so that they may know. He said: You shall sow for seven years continuously, then what you reap leave it in its ear except a little of which you eat. Then there shall come after that seven years of hardship which shall eat away all that you have beforehand and laid up in store for them, except a little of what you shall have preserved ().

And two youths entered the prison with him. One of them said: I saw myself pressing wine. And the other said: I saw myself carrying bread on my head, of which birds ate. Inform us of its interpretation; surely we see you to be of the doers of good ().

O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head; the matter is decreed concerning which you enquired ().

… and teach you the interpretation of saying … ().

… and that We might teach him the interpretation of saying … ().

… and taught me of the interpretation of sayings … ().

The word al-taʾwīl in all these verses is used for the events to which the dreams referred. The dreamers saw the events not as they actually happened but in their allegorical forms; and Joseph “returned” those allegories to the real events which they represented.

The dreams were the forms, and their interpretations were the substances behind those forms. In other words al-taʾwīl (interpretation) is the reality that is allegorically represented by the words or expressions; those words or expressions must be “returned” to the realities which they represent, if one wants to know their true significance.

The verse quoted above in the story of Moses and al-Khiḍr (peace be on them) also were of the same nature, as are the words of God mentioned earlier: And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is good and the fairest in the end ().

Pondering over the verses about the Day of Judgment, one realizes that this word has been used in the same meaning in the earlier-mentioned verses: Nay, they have rejected that of which they have no comprehensive knowledge, and its final interpretation has not yet come to them (); Do they wait for aught but its final interpretations? On the day when its final interpretation comes about… (). Look at verses such as: Certainly you were heedless of it, but now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight today is sharp (). It shows that the vision with which man will see the informations brought by the prophets and the Book turning into reality will be of a different kind—that perception will not be like this physical perception, which we are used to in this world. Even the manifestation of the Day of Judgment as well as the governing principle of that day shall be something beyond the worldly perception of ours. (It will be further explained somewhere else.) Therefore, when it is said that the informations given in the Book and tradition shall “return” to their true meanings on the Day of Judgment it is not the same thing as fulfilment of a forecast in future.

From the above discourse, it becomes clear that:

First: The sentence, “This verse has an al-taʾwīl to which it returns,” conveys a meaning different from the sentence, “this verse is ambiguous and it returns to a decisive verse.”

Second: al-Taʾwīl is not a peculiarity of the ambiguous verses; it is an attribute of the whole Qur’an; decisive verses have their al-taʾwīl, as do the ambiguous ones.

Third: al-Taʾwīl is not the meaning of a word; it is some real fact found outside the imagination. When we say that this verse has an al-taʾwīl, we mean that the verse describes a real fact (past or future) or a real happening, which in its turn points to another reality—and that is its al-taʾwīl, or final interpretation.

Note: In later days, this word was taken to mean “the interpretation that is against the apparent meaning of the word.” But it is not interpretation; it is misinterpretation, an abuse of language. This wrong connotation was unknown at the time when the Qur’an was revealed, and there is no evidence to suggest that this late meaning is intended in this verse.

…but none knows its interpretation except Allah: Apparently, the pronoun, “its” refers to “the part of it which is ambiguous”; also, the pronoun, “it” in the immediately preceding phrase, “to give it (their own) interpretation,” refers to the same. But it does not necessarily mean that only the ambiguous verses have their “final interpretations.”

Another possibility: This “its” may refer to “the Book,” as does the pronoun, “it,” of the phrase, “they follow the part of it.”

The restriction, “none … except,” apparently means that the knowledge of its interpretation is restricted to God. The word, “and,” in the next words, “and those firmly rooted in knowledge” is to begin a new sentence; and this new sentence describes the state of the second category which is in clear contrast with the first one, “those in whose hearts there is perversity.” People, in their acceptance of the Book, are of two categories; those who follow the ambiguous part of the Qur’an, and those who, when coming to such a verse, say, “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord.” And what is the basis of this difference? It is the perversity of the hearts, on one side, and firmly rooted knowledge, on the other.

The word, “and,” in “and those firmly rooted in knowledge…” is not a conjunctive, that is, it does not say that “those firmly rooted in knowledge” know, as God does, the interpretation of the ambiguous verses. Had it been so, the Messenger of God would certainly have been one of them; rather he would be the first and foremost of them—it is unthinkable that the Qur’an was revealed to him and he did not know what it meant! And, as mentioned in volume 4, whenever the Qur’an mentions a group or describes the virtue of a people and the Messenger is among them, it first invariably mentions his name separately, and then the whole group is mentioned together. This protocol maintains the dignity and prestige of the Messenger. Look for example at the following verses: The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and [so do] the believers (); Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believes (); But the Messenger and those who believe with him … (); … and this Prophet and those who believe … (); … on the day on which Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him ().

Therefore, if God had intended to say that those who firmly rooted in knowledge knew the final interpretation of the ambiguous verses—and the Messenger of God is certainly one of them—He would have mentioned his name separately and said: “none knows its interpretation except God and His Messenger and those firmly rooted in knowledge.” However, it may be argued that as the verse had begun with the words, He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book, it necessarily showed that the Messenger knew the Book; therefore, there was no need to mention his name again.

Apparently, the knowledge of the interpretation is restricted to God—so far as this verse is concerned. Although there are exceptions to it, they only serve to prove the rule. There are, for instance, several verses that say that the knowledge of the unseen is restricted to God; yet an exception is given in the verses: The Knower of the unseen! so He does not reveal His secrets to any except to whom He chooses of an apostle … ().

Also, there would be no difficulty if other verses were to show that the very people who were firmly rooted in knowledge were exempted from this restriction. This verse describes one characteristic of those people—that they believe in the ambiguous verses, but refrain from acting upon them and leave the matter in the hand of God, contrary to the behavior of those whose hearts are perverted. If other verses showed that all or some of those who were firmly rooted in knowledge knew the reality of the Qur’an and the interpretation of its verses, then it could not be said that they were contradictory to this verse—because their subject matter would be quite different from this one.

…and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord: al-Rusūkh is to be firmly rooted, fixed or established. The contrast shown between them and those whose hearts are perverted, and then the praise that they say, “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord,” gives their full description: They have knowledge of God and of His signs, a knowledge that is immune from every doubt and suspicion; their knowledge of decisive verses is firmly established, there is no uncertainty in it; they believe in it and act upon it; and when they find an ambiguous verse, their hearts are not perturbed, nor it affects their knowledge of the decisive verses; so they believe in that ambiguous verse, but refrain from acting upon it.

Their declaration, “We believe in it, it is all from our Lord,” gives both the proof and the conclusion. Decisive verses and ambiguous ones, all are from God—therefore, one must believe in all of them. Decisive verses have clear meanings; therefore, one must also act upon them; the ambiguous ones also must be believed in, because they are from God; but only that meaning can be accepted and acted upon that does not go against a decisive verse. In other words, ambiguous verses must be returned to the decisive ones.

Therefore, the sentence, “it is all from our Lord,” is the proof of two things: (i) Decisive verses must be believed in and followed; (ii) Ambiguous ones must be believed in, but for the purpose of action they should be returned to the decisive ones.

…and none do mind except those having understanding: al-Tadhakkur (translated here as “to mind”) means to turn towards the premises to get to the conclusion. It has been mentioned above that the believers’ declaration, “it is all from our Lord,” was their proof by which they found the righteousness of their behavior; therefore, God called it al-tadhakkur and praised them for it.

al-Albāb is plural of al-lubb which means an understanding, clear and free from defects. The people of understanding have been praised very handsomely by God in His Book. According to the Qur’an, it is they who believe in God, turn towards Him and follow the best word; it is they who always remember their Lord, and consequently acquire true knowledge through its premises, and they become the people of wisdom and knowledge. Read the following verses:

And [as for] those who keep off from the worship of the idols and turn to Allah, they shall have good news; therefore, give good news to My servants, those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding (); Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men of understanding, those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth … ().

This unceasing remembrance, and the resulting humility and submissiveness keep them pondering on the signs of God from which they get the true and real knowledge. God says: … and none minds but he who turns [to Him] again and again (); … and none do mind except those having understanding (; ).

رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا وَهَبْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ رَحْمَةً ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنْتَ الْوَهَّابُ٨

(3:8) Our Lord! make not our hearts to deviate after Thou hast guided us [aright]; and grant us from Thee mercy; surely Thou art the most liberal Giver.

This prayer is an indication of their firmly rooted knowledge. They know their Lord and understand His power. They believe that everything belongs to Him only, and that they have no authority whatsoever on their own selves. There is a possibility that God may cause their hearts to deviate even after their firmly rooted knowledge. Therefore, they seek refuge in their Lord and ask Him not to make their hearts deviate after He has guided them aright, and to grant them His own mercy so that this bounty may remain with them for ever and ever, helping them to walk on the straight path, bringing them nearer and nearer to their Lord.

Why did they ask from God to grant them mercy from Himself, when they had already asked Him not to make their hearts deviate? It is because non-deviation of heart does not necessarily mean remaining firmly rooted in knowledge. It is possible that one’s heart is not deviated, but at the same time is deprived of the knowledge—one in this condition would be figuratively speaking in a vegetative state: neither blessed with knowledge nor cursed with deviation; rather in a state of ignorance and feebleness. But they know that their firmly rooted knowledge is a must for them; so they pray for the Divine mercy, so as not to be deprived of that knowledge.

Apart from that, they are still on their way; and before the journey is completed they are in need of every type of mercy—the mercies that cannot be known or counted except by God. Those knowledgeable believers are fully aware of this great need of theirs. The sentence coming after this verse, “Our Lord! surely Thou art the Gatherer of men on a day about which there is no doubt,” shows their awareness of their dependence on Divine mercy till the end of this journey.

The first prayer (make not our hearts deviate after Thou hast guided us aright) seeks to ward off a misfortune; the second one (and grant us from Thee mercy) pleads for the greatest fortune, the Divine mercy that would keep their hearts alive for ever. The word, “mercy” has been used as a common noun, and it has been qualified with the phrase, “from Thee”; they have used this style to show that they do not know anything about this mercy; the only thing they know is that, but for this mercy of their Lord, they cannot succeed in any way.

They sought refuge in God from the deviation of their hearts and asked from Him His mercy. It proves that they knew that everything belonged to God; their eyes were directly on the Real Cause, ignoring all the middle causes.

رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ جَامِعُ النَّاسِ لِيَوْمٍ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُخْلِفُ الْمِيعَادَ ٩

(3:9) Our Lord! surely Thou art the Gatherer of men on a day about which there is no doubt; surely Allah fails not [His] promise.

This pleading of theirs gives the reason of their prayer for mercy. They know that this system of creation, this call to the religion, this striving by man in his path of life, all are precursors of their gathering together on the Day of Resurrection when no one shall avail anyone and none shall be helped except by the Divine mercy. God says: Surely the day of discrimination is their appointed time, of all of them; the day on which a friend shall not avail [his] friend aught, nor shall they be helped, save those on whom Allah shall have mercy … (). That is why they prayed to Him for His mercy; and left all its details to His discretion, so that it be of real benefit to them.

They said that there was no doubt about that day. It showed their deep concern about the mercy asked for. Then they ended their prayer on the sentence, surely Allah fails not [His] promise. They were firmly rooted in knowledge. Knowledge about a thing is not firmly established unless one knows the cause from which that thing emanates. They had no doubt about the Day of Resurrection, because it had been promised by God; and God does not fail His promise.

This pleading contains a proposition followed by its reason. They have used the same style in the whole invocation from the very beginning:

They said, “We believe in it,” and gave its reason in the next sentence, “it is all from our Lord.”

Then they prayed, “Our Lord! make not our hearts deviate,” and added a phrase that gives a sort of its reason, “after Thou hast guided us (aright).”

Then came the pleading, “and grant us from Thee mercy,” followed by its reason, “surely Thou art the most liberal Giver.” In fact there is a double proposition and likewise a double reason in this prayer. They did not ask for “any” mercy, but a mercy “from Thee.” Thereafter, the sentence giving the reason contains two singular pronouns of second person: Ka (Thou) and anta (Thou) and the predicate has been given the definite article, al (the); these two restrictive devices emphasize that the only Giver is God; and hence they have asked for only His mercy.

They are the people who believed in their Lord and remained firm on it. Therefore, God guided them aright and perfected their wisdom. Now they do not utter any word except with knowledge, nor do they do any work that is not based on knowledge. Consequently, God praised them by calling them as those who are firmly rooted in knowledge; and gave them the title of “people of understanding.”

If you read once again how God has praised the people of understanding, you will see that all those attributes perfectly fit these people. Look again, for example, at the verses: And [as for] those who keep off from the worship of the idols and turn to Allah, they shall have good news; therefore give good news to My servants, those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding (). These verses say that the people of understanding have faith, follow the best of the word and turn to God. The same characteristics have been attributed in this verse to those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.

They have used the second person singular pronouns for God throughout the prayer; but have ended it with mentioning the Divine name (and thus switching to third person) and said: surely Allah fails not [His] promise. It is because this promise is not especially for them; it is a general promise; therefore they changed the phrase, “Our Lord” to the Divine name “God,” as this name shows His sovereignty over all things.

Discourse

The discussion “A Detailed Discourse about the Decisive & Ambiguous Verses and Interpretation.” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

Examining Narrations

1. It is written in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī: Abū ʿAbdillāh was asked about the decisive and the ambiguous verses. He said: “The decisive is that which is acted upon; and the ambiguous is that which is doubtful for the one who is ignorant of it.”

Author’s comment: There is a hint in the last sentence that the knowledge of the meaning of the ambiguous verse is possible to him who is not ignorant of it.

2. The same book quotes the same Imam as saying: “The Qur’an is decisive and ambiguous. As for the decisive, you believe in it, act upon it and submit to it; and as for the ambiguous, you believe in it but do not act upon it. And it is the word of God, Mighty and Great is He: then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it, it is all from our Lord.’ And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge are the progeny of Muḥammad”

Author’s comment: We shall discuss the last sentence later.

3. The same book quotes Masʿadah b. Sadaqah as saying: “I asked Abū ʿAbdillāh about the abrogating (verse), and the abrogated, and the decisive and ambiguous (ones). He said: ‘The abrogating is the firm (verse) that is acted upon; and the abrogated is the one that was acted upon and then came the verse that abrogated it; and the ambiguous is the one that is doubtful to him who is ignorant of it.’ ”
4. In another tradition this reply is reported as follows: “The abrogating is the firm (verse); and the abrogated is the one that passed away; and the decisive is the one that is acted upon; and the ambiguous is the one whose one part resembles the other.”
5. al-Bāqir said, inter alia, in a tradition: “So the abrogated (verses) are among the ambiguous ones.” (al-Kāfī)
6. al-Riḍā said: “He who returned the ambiguous (part) of the Qur’an to its decisive (part), was guided to the straight path.” Then he said: “Verily, there is ambiguous in our traditions, like the ambiguous of the Qur’an; therefore, return its ambiguous to its decisive, and do not follow its ambiguous, lest you go astray.” (ʿUyūn al-akhbār)

Author’s comment: All the above-mentioned traditions explain the term “ambiguous” in nearly the same way. All of them support our earlier statement that the verses’ ambiguousness may be removed by explaining them in the light of the decisive verses. Also, it was explained why the abrogated verse was counted among the ambiguous: It is because it seems to promulgate a perpetual law and then comes the abrogating verse and shows that its “perpetuity” is cut short. The word of the Imam, that there was ambiguous in their traditions like the ambiguous of the Qur’an and decisive like the decisive of the Qur’an, is supported by many other traditions of Ahl al-Bayt, that are nearly al-mutawātir. Reason also supports it. Their traditions deal with the same subjects that are described in the Qur’an; and ambiguousness is the characteristic of those subjects inasmuch as they are clothed with the words; it is not a characteristic of the word, per se. In short, ambiguousness happens because the verses are like the parables of the sublime spiritual facts. And this factor is equally present in the traditions. Therefore, like the Qur’an, the traditions also are ambiguous and decisive. And it has been narrated that the Prophet said: “We, the group of the prophets, have been ordered to talk with the people according to the capacity of their understanding.”

7. It is narrated in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad from his father (peace be on them both) that a man said to Amīr al-muʾminīn [Imam ʿAlī]: “Will you describe to us our Lord, so that we may love and know Him more.” Hearing it, he became angry and delivered a sermon, in which he said:

“You should stick, O servant of God to what the Qur’an has shown you about His attributes, and the Messenger has guided you about His knowledge; and seek illumination from the light of his guidance, because it is a bounty and a wisdom that you have been given. Therefore, accept what you have been given and be of the grateful ones. And whatever task Satan imposes on you, which neither the Book has imposed upon you nor the traditions of the Messenger and the (truly) guiding Imams have ordered you (to know), then entrust its knowledge to God; and do not (try to) measure the greatness of God. And know, O servant of God! that those who are firmly rooted in knowledge are those whom God has kept above the need of crashing into the screens put before the unseen; so they took it upon themselves to acknowledge all that they were unaware of its explanation, from the unseen that is screened off, and they said: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And God has praised (them for) their acknowledging their inability to get that which their knowledge had not encompassed. And when they refrained from going into what God had not ordered them to search, God called this refraining as being firmly rooted in knowledge. Therefore, be content with this much, and do not measure the greatness of God with the measure of your understanding; otherwise, you would be of those who are doomed to perdition.”

Author’s comment: The sentence, “And know … that those who are firmly rooted in knowledge …,” throws further light on the meaning of “and” in the word of God, “and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say ….” This tradition shows that, according to the Imam, that “and” is not a conjunctive; it starts a new sentence, as we have explained in the commentary. What this tradition, however, shows is that this verse does not prove that those who are firmly rooted in knowledge know the interpretation of the Qur’an; not that it proves that they do not know the said interpretation. It does not deny the existence of other proofs to show that they know this interpretation, as we have explained earlier; and some traditions of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt also support it. The words, “are those whom God has kept above the need of …,” are the predicate of the subject, “those who are firmly rooted …”

The sermon exhorts the enquirer to hold fast to the practice of those who are firmly rooted in knowledge; to confess his ignorance of what he does not know—in this way he would become one of them.

It means that, according to the Imam, those people are firmly rooted in knowledge who hold fast to what they know and do not cross the boundary to what they do not know. “The unseen that is hidden behind the screens” is the intended meaning of the ambiguous verse that is hidden from common minds. That is why the Imam mentioned soon after that they “acknowledge all that they were unaware of its explanation from the unseen …”; note that he did not say, “unaware of its interpretation ….”

8. al-Ṣādiq said: “We are those who are firmly rooted in knowledge; and we know its interpretation.” (al-Kāfī)

Author’s comment: It may appear from this tradition that the Imam took the word “and,” in the verse, “and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge,” as a conjunctive and that, in addition to God, those also knew the Qur’anic interpretation who were firmly rooted in knowledge. But this apparent connotation is not in place, because of the explanation given earlier, and also because of the preceding tradition.

Also, it is possible that the Imam used the word “interpretation,” as a synonymous for “exegesis”; such usage was common in the early centuries.

“… and we know its interpretation”: A preceding tradition also had said: “And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge are the progeny of Muḥammad.” This statement is found in other traditions too. All this is a part of the flow of the Qur’an—applying the verses wherever they fit perfectly.

9. It is reported in al-Kāfī from Hishām b. al-Ḥakam that he said: “Abu al-Ḥasan Musa b. Jaʿfar told me: ‘… O Hishām! Verily, God quoted a good people as saying: Our Lord! Make not our hearts to deviate after Thou hast guided us [aright]; and grant us from Thee mercy; surely Thou art the most liberal Giver. They were aware that the hearts could deviate and return to their blindness and perdition. Verily, he did not fear God who did not understand from God; and (as for him) who did not understand from God, his heart would not be resolute with a confirmed knowledge, which he could visualize and whose reality he could find in his heart. And only that one can be like this whose word confirms his deeds, and whose private (life) is in conformity with his manifest (one); because God (Honored is His name!) did not prove (one’s) esoteric (and) hidden wisdom except through its manifestation and declaration.’ ”

Author’s comment: “Verily, he did not fear God who did not understand from God”: It expresses the same idea as the words of God: Verily fear Allah only those of His servants who are possessed of knowledge (). The sentence, “and (as for him) who did not understand from God, his heart would not be resolute with a confirmed knowledge …,” is the best expression to explain the significance of being firmly rooted in knowledge. Unless a reality is thoroughly understood, the loopholes of doubts and confusion would not be closed, and the heart would remain perturbed and perplexed in believing it. But when the understanding is completed and the heart resolutely believes in it, it would not go against the dictates of that firm knowledge; and would not follow the temptations of desire. Then there would be no discrepancy between his secret and open lives; what would be in his heart would manifest itself through his deeds; what he would say would conform with what he does.

The words, “and only that one can be like this whose word confirms …,” describe the characteristics of those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.

10. Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and al-Ṭabarānī have narrated from Anas, Abū Amāmah, Wāthilah b. Asqaʿ and Abū al-Dardāʾ that the Messenger of God was asked about: those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. He said: “He whose oath is abode by, and his tongue is truthful, and his heart is steadfast, and whose stomach and genitals are chaste, then that is among those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comment: This tradition may be explained in terms of the preceding one.

11. al-Bāqir said: “Verily, those who are firmly rooted in knowledge are those in whose knowledge there is no discrepancy.” (al-Kāfī)

Author’s comment: This explanation fits the verse perfectly. The verse shows that perversity and deviation of heart is opposite of firmly rooted knowledge. Therefore, there would be no deviation, confusion and discrepancy in the knowledge of those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.

12. Ibn Abī Shaybah, Aḥmad, al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Jarīr, al-Ṭabarānī and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Umm Salmah: “Verily, the Messenger of God used to say very often in his invocations, ‘O God, O Turner of the hearts! Keep my heart firm on thy religion.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of God! and do the hearts turn?’ He said: ‘Yes. God has not created a single human being from the progeny of Adam but that his heart is between two of the fingers of God; then if He wills, He keeps it straight; and if He wills, He turns it away …’ ” (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comment: This idea has been narrated through several chains from a number of companions, like Jābir, Nawwās b. Samʿān, ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar and Abū Hurayrah. The well-known are the words of the tradition of Nawwās: “The heart of the son of Adam is between two of the fingers of the Beneficent (God).” And the same words have been narrated, as I think, by al-Sharīf al-Raḍī in his al-Majāzātu al-nabawiyyah.

13. It has been narrated from ʿAlī that he was asked: “Is there with you anything of the revelation? (that is, do you receive any revelation from God?) He replied: “No, by Him Who split the grain and created the soul! Except that God gives a servant understanding of His Book.”

Author’s comment: It is one of the most important traditions. The least that may be proved from it is that all that astonishing knowledge that spread from him and which even today stuns the minds, was all derived from the Qur’an.

14. al-Ṣādiq narrated from his father through his forefathers (peace be on them all) that the Messenger of God said: “O people! You are in an interim station, and you are riding on a journey, and the speed with which you are taken away is fast; and you have seen the night and the day and the sun and the moon (how) they wear out every new (thing), and bring near every distant (object), and bring out every promised (affair); therefore, prepare your outfit for the distant journey.” The Imam said that at this point al-Miqdād b. al-Aswad stood up and asked: “And what is the interim station? O Messenger of God!” He said: “The house of communication and cessation. Therefore, when mischiefs come to confuse you like the segments of a dark night, then hold fast to the Qur’an; as it is the intercessor whose intercession shall be granted; and a credible advocate; and whoever keeps it before him, it will lead him to the Garden; and whoever keeps it behind, it will drive him to the Fire; and it is the guide that guides to the best path; and it is a Book in which there is explanation, particularization and recapitulation; and it is a decisive (word), and not a joke; and there is for it a manifest (meaning) and an esoteric (one); thus its apparent (meaning) is firm, and its esoteric (one) is knowledge; its exterior is elegant and its interior deep; it has (many) boundaries, and its boundaries have (many) boundaries; its wonders shall not cease, and its (unexpected) marvels shall not be old. There are in it the lamps of guidance and the beacon of wisdom, and a guide to knowledge. for him who knows the attributes. Therefore, one should extend his sight; and should let his eyes reach the attribute; so that one who is in perdition may get deliverance, and one who is entangled may get free; because meditation is the life of the heart of the one who sees, as the one having a light (easily) walks in the darkness; therefore, you must seek good deliverance and (that) with little waiting.” (al-Kāfī)

Author’s comment: al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated it up to the words, “therefore, one should extend his sight.”

15. It is narrated in al-Kāfī and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from al-Ṣādiq that he said that the Messenger of God said: “The Qur’an is a guide from wilderness, an eyesight for the blind, a pardon for the sinner, and a light against darkness; a brightness from the happenings, and safety from disaster, and guidance from going astray; a clarity in the chaos, and the means to reach (safely) from this world to the next; and there is in it the perfection of your religion; and no one deviated from the Qur’an except to the Fire.”

Author’s comment: There are countless such traditions narrated from the Prophet and the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be on them all).

16. It is narrated in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from al-Fuḍayl b. Yasār that he said: “I asked Abū Jaʿfar about this tradition: ‘There is no verse in the Qur’an but it has an exterior and an interior, and there is no word in it but it has a boundary, and every boundary has a watching place.’ (I asked him) what was the meaning of exterior and interior. The Imam said: ‘Its exterior is its revelation; and its interior is its interpretation; some of it has already passed (that is happened) and there is some of it that has not come about yet; it runs along as run the sun and the moon, when a thing of it comes (to its appointed place and time) it happens. God has said: and none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge; we know it.’ ”

Author’s comment: “Some of it has already passed and there is some of it that has not come about yet”: Apparently the pronoun “it” stands for the Qur’an—for its revelation and interpretation both. Therefore, the sentence “it runs along as run the sun and the moon,” will apply to both the revelation and the interpretation. So far as the revelation (that is, the revealed word) is concerned it is the same thing as applying the verse to all situations in which its import comes true; and which is termed as the flow of the Qur’an. For example, look at the verse: O you who believe! fear Allah and be with the true ones (). It was addressed, initially, to the believers who were present at the time of its revelation. Now it is applied to all the believers who came afterwards and will come up to the Day of Resurrection. It is the most obvious application that is practised not only by the Muslims but by all sensible persons in every language.

But there are some other ways of finer and still more finer applications. For example, when the verses of fighting are used to exhort, the believers to fight against their own selves, or when the verses condemning the hypocrites are applied to the sinful believers, it is a finer application.

When one proceeds further in one’s spiritual journey then the above-mentioned verses of fighting and hypocrisy as well as the verses concerning the sinners are applied to those virtuous servants of God who for a fleeting moment turn towards unavoidable worldly affairs, thus disrupting their meditation, remembrance of, and presence before, God. Needless to say that it is a much more finer application than the previous ones.

And its finest application comes when those most perfect, most virtuous and most beloved servants of God apply those verses to themselves because they, in their love of God, think that they have failed in discharging their duty to God.

From the above discourse, it becomes clear that:

First: The Qur’an has connotations of varying degrees, that are applied to various groups according to their spiritual perfection. Those who have described the stages of faith in, and love of, God, have mentioned even more finer applications than those written above.

Second: “Exterior” and “interior” are relative attributes. Every exterior is interior when seen in relation to a more exterior meaning; and every interior is exterior in comparison to a more interior one. The following tradition explicitly mentions this fact.

17. al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated, in his Tafsīr, from Jābir that he said: “I asked Abū Jaʿfar the explanation of (a verse of) the Qur’an, and he explained it to me. Thereafter, I asked him (the same question) and he gave me a different reply. So I told him: ‘May I be your ransom! You had given me, before this day, a different reply to this very question!’ Thereupon he said: ‘O Jābir! verily, the Qur’an has an interior, and for its interior there is an interior; and (it has) an exterior, and for its exterior there is an exterior. O Jābir! and there is nothing farther from the understanding of the men than the explanation of the Qur’an. Verily a verse, its first (part) is about (that is, throws light on) one subject, and its middle is about another matter, and its end is about a third thing, and (still) it is a well-connected speech, (that) revolves in various ways.’ ”
18. The same book narrates a tradition from the same Imam in which he said: “If a verse is revealed about a people and those people die, that verse does not die. Otherwise, nothing would have survived of the Qur’an. But the Qur’an, its first is applied to its last, so long as the heavens and the earth will continue. And for every group there is a verse, which they recite, they are from it (that is, it is applied to them) either from good or from evil.”
19. Ḥumrān b. Aʿyan said: “I asked Abū Jaʿfar about the exterior of the Qur’an and its interior; and he said: ‘Its exterior are those people about whom the Qur’an was revealed; and its interior are those who do as those had done; that which was revealed about those flows about these (that is, it is applied to the followers also).’ ” (Maʿānī al-akhbār)
20. It is narrated in the Tafsīr al-Ṣāfī that ʿAlī said: “There is no verse but it has four meanings: Manifest, and esoteric, and boundary and rising (or watching) place. So, the manifest is the recitation, and esoteric is the comprehension, and boundary is the commandments of lawful and unlawful, and rising (or watching) place is the Divine purpose, expected of the servant through this verse.”

Author’s comment: “Recitation” is counted as one of the meanings; it shows that this word refers to the apparent meaning of the verse. Then “comprehension,” which is given as its opposite, would mean the inner (esoteric) meaning hidden behind the apparent one; “the commandments of lawful and unlawful” refers to that Qur’anic knowledge which one acquires in its first or intermediate stages; thus it stands face to face with the “rising (or watching) place” which is the highest grade of the meaning. Probably, the boundary and the rising place are relative terms, as the manifest and the esoteric are—thus every higher grade may be called a rising place in comparison to a lower level.

al-Maṭlaʿ (rising place, horizon) may also be read al-muṭṭalaʿ (the watching place). As the Imam has said, it refers to that Divine purpose for which the verse was revealed and which the servant of God is expected to fulfil.

These four meanings have also been mentioned in a famous tradition of the Prophet which is as follows:

“Verily, the Qur’an has been revealed on seven letters: For every verse of it, there is an exterior and an interior, and for every boundary there is a rising place.”

In another version the last sentence is as follows: “and for each there is a boundary and a rising place.”

According to the first version (“for every boundary there is a rising place”), it means that for each exterior and interior—that is, the boundary—there is a rising place to which it ascends. This meaning is clear. And the second version (“for each there is a boundary and a rising place”) may also be interpreted in the same way: each exterior and interior has a boundary, that is, its own meaning, and each has a rising place to which it ascends—in other words, it would be referring to the “interpretation.” But this explanation is not in conformity with the tradition of ʿAlī mentioned above (“There is no verse but it has four meanings …”).

In the light of the above given discourse, the four terms may be explained in the following way:

The exterior is the manifest meaning that is understood from the words of the verse.

The interior is the esoteric meaning which is hidden behind the manifest one. It may be one or more—one behind the other—nearer to the manifest one or distant, with or without any intermediate link.

The boundary is the meaning, whether the exterior or the interior.

The rising place is that meaning from which the boundary (as explained above) arises. In other words, it is the esoteric meaning that is immediately adjacent to the boundary.

21. There is a tradition, narrated through both the Shīʿah and the Sunnī chains, from the Prophet that he said: “The Qur’an has been revealed on seven letters.”

Author’s comment: Although there are some minor differences in the wordings of various versions of this tradition, it has been narrated by so many people as to make it nearly al-mutawātir; and the narrations are nearly similar in meaning, and have come both from the Shīʿahs and the Sunnīs. There is a great controversy concerning the meaning of this tradition—some forty explanations have been given for it. But, in reality, there should not be any difficulty in understanding it, because its explanation is given in the traditions themselves; and that should be followed, instead of inventing new explanations.

Some of these traditions say: The Qur’an has come down on seven letters: order, restraint, exhortation, intimidation, argument, stories and parables.”

Another version counts them as follows: restraint, order, lawful, unlawful, decisive, ambiguous and parables.

ʿAlī is reported as saying: “Verily God revealed the Qur’an on seven categories, each of which is sufficient and satisfying; and they are: order, restraint, exhortation, intimidation, argument, parables and stories.”

Therefore, the seven letters must be explained as seven modes of address, seven kinds of expression. They are seven; yet they are one in their aim, because all invite to God, and call to His straight path.

It may be inferred from these traditions that all fundamental spiritual knowledge is confined within the parables; because other six categories cannot be applied to those realities, except by stretching the meanings of the words.

Traditions on Interpreting the Qur’an According to One’s own Opinion

1. The Prophet said: “Whoever interprets (that is, explains) the Qur’an according to his opinion, should settle himself in his seat of Fire.” (al-Ṣāfī)

Author’s comment: This matter has been narrated by both the Sunnīs and the Shīʿahs. And there are many other traditions of the same import, narrated from the Prophet and the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt.

2. It is narrated in Munyat al-murīd that the Prophet said: “Whoever spoke about the Qur’an without knowledge, should settle himself in his seat of Fire.”

Author’s comment: Also, it has been narrated by Abū Dāwūd in his

al-Sunan.

3. The Prophet said: “Whoever speaks about the Qur’an without knowledge, shall come on the Day of Resurrection reined with a rein of fire.” (Munyat al-murīd)
4. The same book narrates that the Prophet said: “Whoever spoke about the Qur’an of his own opinion (even if) he was right, he committed wrong.”

Author’s comment: This tradition has also been narrated by Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī and al-Nasāʾī.

5. The Prophet said: “What I am afraid of, most of all, concerning my ummah after me, is the man who will take the Qur’an putting it in wrong place (that is, giving wrong interpretations).” (al-Munyat al-murīd)
6. Abū Baṣīr said that Abū ʿAbdillāh said: “Whoever interprets the Qur’an according to his own opinion, if he gets to the right interpretation, he shall not be rewarded; and if he errs then he shall be farther away from the heaven. (Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī)
7. The same book quotes Yaʿqūb b. Yazīd who narrated from Yāsir that al-Riḍā said: “Opinion in the Book of God is infidelity.”

Author’s comment: This theme is found in other traditions written in ʿUyūn al-akhbār, al-Khiṣāl and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī among other books.

The words of the Prophet: “Whoever interprets (that is, explains) the Qur’an according to his opinion”: al-Raʿy (opinion) means the belief reached at after diligent research. It is also used for the opinion based on desire and one’s own inclination. The Prophet has used the phrase, “his opinion”; it shows that what is condemned is the interpretation of a verse independently without looking at other relevant verses. It does not forbid striving hard and doing one’s utmost to understand the meaning of the Qur’an; nor does it say that one should confine oneself to what has been said in the traditions of the Prophet and Ahl al-Bayt relating to the exegesis of the verses (as many traditionalists think). Otherwise, it would be diametrically opposed to the many verses which show that the Qur’an is plain Arabic and which exhort the people to meditate on it; also it would be against many traditions that tell them to turn to the Qur’an and judge the traditions by it.

What the words, “according to his opinion,” refer to is explaining the Qur’an according to one’s personal views by being independent of other Qur’anic declarations. This happens when an exegete depends solely on the instruments of Arabic language and literature, which are used for understanding a human talk. When we hear a speech of a man we at once look towards the rules of the language so that we may understand what the speaker means, and in this way we decide its import; we use this method everywhere, even in legal matters like testimony and acknowledgement. We use this method because human speech is based on the rules of language and rhetorics.

But the Qur’an’s diction is not based on this foundation, as we have explained earlier. The whole Qur’an is a speech whose sentences and verses are all related to one another; at the same time they are separate from each other; one part speaks with, and leads to the others, as ʿAlī has said: “Obviously, it is not enough to look at a single verse in the light of language and literature and decide what it means, unless one meditates on all the relevant verses and strives one’s utmost to find out from all of them together what that particular verse means. The verse points to this very fact, as we have explained in the topic of brevity: Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.

Explaining the Qur’an according to one’s opinion is, thus, prohibited. And this prohibition is directed to the way of exegesis, and not to the exegesis itself. In other words, the Prophet has forbidden the people to try to understand the Divine words by the same methods which are used to understand a human speech—it is irrelevant whether they succeed in comprehending its true meaning or not. That is why he has said in another tradition: “Whoever spoke about the Qur’an of his own opinion, (even if) he was right, he committed wrong.” This dictum clearly proves that the mistake lies in choosing the way; it does not matter whether that way takes one to the true destination or not. The same is the explanation of the words, narrated in the tradition of al-ʿAyyāshī: “if he gets to the right interpretation, he shall not be rewarded.”

This view is supported also by the state of affairs in the days of the Prophet. The revelation of the Qur’an was not yet completed; and what was revealed was not yet arranged; not all the Muslims had in their hands all the revealed verses—most of them had only a few chapters and verses with them. Had they been allowed to explain every piece or verse separately, without comparing that piece with other relevant verses, they would almost certainly have fallen into error.

It appears from the above discourse that what the exegete has been forbidden is to interpret a verse of the Qur’an independently, relying on his own knowledge and opinion, without reference to another authority. In other words, it is necessary, when one wants to explain a Qur’anic verse, to seek help from others by referring the matter to them. Who is that other authority? It could only be either other Qur’anic verses, or the traditions. The second alternative is out of question, because the Prophet has ordered the Muslims to refer the traditions to the Qur’an; it cannot be the other way round. The tradition’s meanings and even their authenticity is tested by the Qur’an; how can tradition decide the meaning of the Qur’an? Thus, there remains only one valid and approved way of explaining the verses of the Qur’an, and that is with the help of other relevant verses.

This much is enough to show the irrelevance of numerous explanations written about the tradition of “interpreting the Qur’an by one’s own opinion.” The scholars have explained this tradition in not less than ten ways:

First: It means interpreting the Qur’an without expertise in those subjects which are essential for knowing its exegesis. And al-Suyūṭī has said in al-Itqān that they are fifteen in all: Language, syntax, conjugation, etymology, styles of literature, rhetoric, elocution, recitation of the Qur’an, roots of religion, fundamentals of jurisprudence, reasons and occasions of revelations (as well as the stories mentioned in the Qur’an), abrogating and abrogated verses, law of the shariah, traditions that explain the general and unspecific verses, and the gifted knowledge. This last phrase refers to a tradition of the Prophet: “Whoever acts upon what he knows, God gives him knowledge of what he does not know.”

Second: It refers to the attempts of finding the interpretations of the ambiguous verses, which no one knows except God.

Third: It is interpretation of the Qur’an to support a wrong belief or action. It happens when an exegete makes his own view or belief the foundation upon which he builds the exegesis of the Qur’an; he fits the verse on his own belief in any possible way—no matter how weak or far-fetched that might be.

Fourth: It is declaring, without any proof, that a certain explanation is the meaning really intended by God.

Fifth: It refers to explaining the Qur’an according to one’s inclination and desire.

These five explanations of the said tradition have been narrated by Ibn al-Naqīb, as al-Suyūṭī has quoted in al-Itqān. There are five other explanations which we enumerate here from other books:

Sixth: It is explaining the difficult passages of the Qur’an in a new way which was not narrated from the companions and their disciples—because such an interpretation would make the exegete liable to the displeasure of God.

Seventh: The tradition is about explaining the Qur’an in a certain way, while the speaker knows that it is not the true explanation.

These last two have been mentioned by Ibn al-Anbari.

Eighth: The tradition forbids talking about the Qur’an without knowledge and without making sure—it does not matter whether the speaker knows or not that another explanation is true.

Ninth: It forbids reliance on the apparent meaning of the Qur’an. It is the explanation of those who think that the apparent meaning of the Qur’an is not a valid authority; to understand a verse, one must look to a clear tradition narrated from a sinless authority (that is, the Prophet, his daughter and the twelve Imams, peace be on them all). But in fact it shall not be an exegesis of the Qur’an; rather it shall be following the tradition. Anyhow, according to this group, exegesis of the Qur’an depends on the explanation of a sinless authority.

Tenth: There were some people who believed that the Qur’an had valid apparent meanings, but said that common people could not understand it. According to this view also, relying on the apparent meaning of the Qur’an was forbidden by this tradition. One must look for clear traditions of the sinless authorities to interpret the Qur’an.

These are ten explanations of the said tradition—although some may in effect be identical to some others. In any case, none of these is supported by any proof. Moreover, some are obviously wrong, or their inaccuracy may be understood from what we have earlier said about this tradition. There is no need to point it out again.

There are many verses that support the traditions mentioned earlier: Do they not meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (); Those who made the Qur’an into shreds (); Surely they who distort Our signs are not hidden from Us. What! is he then who is cast into the fire better or he who comes safe on the Day of Resurrection? Do what you like, surely He sees what you do (); … [there are those who] alter words from their places …(); And pursue not that of which you have not the knowledge (). Such verses in conjunction with the above-mentioned traditions make it clear that the prohibition contained in those traditions is about the method used for the exegesis; they show that when explaining the Divine Speech, one should not adopt the same means that are used for explaining human talks.

What is the difference between Divine and human speeches? It is not in the use of words, the construction of sentences or the style of elocution. The Qur’an is in plain Arabic, and all norms of eloquence have been mentioned in it. God Himself has said: And We did not send any apostle but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly (); … and this is clear Arabic language (); Surely We have made it an Arabic Qur’an so that you may understand ().

The difference between the two is about the meaning and its application. This statement needs some elaboration:

We are at home in this material word, and surrounded with its natural phenomena. As a result, when we hear a word our mind, first of all, looks at its physical connotation and application. When a fellow human being describes a thing or affair, we apply his words to what we are accustomed to in this world; because we know that the speaker too is governed by the same forces as we are, and his comprehension and cognition is not different from ours. In this way the application of a word affects its meaning—it may particularize a general meaning or vice versa; the circumstances may manipulate a word’s connotation in a lot of ways. It is what we call rational context, in contrast to the textual evidence.

For example, if we hear a powerful and wealthy man saying, “There is not a thing but with us are the treasures of it,” first we shall look at the literal meaning of this sentence, then will come the stage of its application. At this stage, we shall say that he has many strong and well-protected buildings which have got a lot of containers of various types to store his treasures, that consist of a large quantity of gold, silver, currency notes, bonds, jewels, various commodities, ornamental items, arms and ammunitions etc. We get this picture in our mind because this is what we call treasure and that is how it is kept safe and secure. But we will never imagine that he has in his treasury the earth and the heavens, the continents and the oceans, the sun and the moon, the animals and the human beings. These too are “things,” but they are not possessed, gathered and put in a treasury. Because of this rational context we do restrict the generality of the word “thing” and apply it to a few selected items only; and in those items too only a small amount is presumed to be kept in his treasury. We know that a lot of things are not treasured, and what is treasured, only a small amount comes into possession of one man, and that small quantity is preserved in strong, impregnable buildings to protect it from theft and other damages. And this knowledge of ours has restricted the general meaning of the words, “thing” and “treasures.”

But now we hear God revealing to His Messenger: And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures of it (). If our mind is not developed, and is still on the lowest rung of comprehension, we shall interpret this verse in exactly the same manner. Of course, we shall not have any proof to say that the verse has been used in the same sense; yet we shall rush to that explanation, because our mind is accustomed to it. This is, then, explaining the Qur’an according to our own opinion without knowledge.

Now let us say that our understanding is a bit more developed, and we know that God does not gather things to put them in a treasury. We think over this verse and read the next sentence: and We do not send it down but in a known measure; and then we compare it with another verse : … and [in] what Allah sends down sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death … there are signs for a people who understand (). We shall at once say that the word “thing,” in the verse under discussion, refers to the sustenance like bread and water; and that “sending it down,” in the next sentence, refers to the coming down of rain. We shall give it this interpretation because we do not know of anything, except the rain, that comes down from heavens; therefore, we shall say that accumulation of everything near God and then its coming down in measured quantity refers to the accumulation of rain and its coming down to the earth to produce food grains. This too shall be interpreting the Qur’an according to one’s own opinion “without knowledge.” What is our argument? It is that we do not know of anything, except the rain, that descends from the heaven. But “not knowing” that a certain thing exists is quite different from “knowing” that it does not exist.

If our knowledge is more advanced and our mind more developed, we shall try not to say anything concerning the Qur’an without knowledge. We shall say that the words of the verse are general; they should not be restricted in any way. “Thing” includes everything, and the word, “treasures,” covers every single item of everything. We shall arrive at the conclusion that the sentence describes the affairs of the creation and the creatures. Then will come to the puzzling sentence, “and We do not send it down but in a known measure.” Doubtlessly, human beings, animals and vegetables do not come down from the heavens; they grow from, and are born on, the earth. Faced with this difficulty, we shall say that the first sentence, “And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures of it,” is a metaphorical way of saying that everything in its existence is subservient to the will of God; that the Divine will is like a treasure that holds every creature, and only as much issues forth from it as is willed by God. But this interpretation also, like the previous two, is based on “not knowing.” We “do not know” that the things descend (in the meaning known to us) from God, and, therefore, we explain away the sentence in an allegorical way.

If you look at the Divine names, attributes and actions as described in the Qur’an, or at the Qur’anic declarations about the angels, the Divine Books, the apostles and the Day of Resurrection and its details, or at the laws of the shariah and their significance as given in the Qur’an, and then ponder on the way people want to interpret them in the light of rational context, you will see that all such exercises are but interpretations according to one’s own liking without knowledge; that they should better be called misinterpretations.

We have shown under the fifth heading in the discourse of the decisive and the ambiguous verses that the Qur’anic expressions vis-a-vis the Divine realities are like a proverb in relation to its significance; and those realities have been explained in various expressions and diverse wordings, so that all taken together may lead the hearers to their real significance. That is why the verses are said to be witnesses of each other; and that is how they explain one another. Otherwise, the Divine realities could never be correctly explained; and people would have fallen in the pitfall of interpreting the Qur’an without knowledge.

The above discourse shows that interpreting the Qur’an according to one’s own opinion is always accompanied by speaking about it without knowledge. The tradition of the Prophet points to this fact: “Whoever spoke about the Qur’an without knowledge should settle himself in his seat of Fire.”

It is such interpretations that make it look as though the verses of the Qur’an were contradictory to one another. Interpreting the verses by one’s own opinion, without true knowledge, disturbs the semantic flow of the Qur’an. Thus the verses are misinterpreted, the words shifted from their right places and used in wrong contexts. Then it becomes necessary for these exegetes to explain some or most of the verses in a way that is against their apparent meanings; Divine words and sentences are given such meanings which the linguists had never heard of. Thus we find a group explaining away the verses of free will and choice, and their opponents misinterpreting the verses of Divine decree and measure. Most of the Muslim sects are guilty of this type of misinterpretation, especially in those verses whose apparent meanings go against their beliefs. They seek refuge in clothing such verses with meanings of their own choice, and their so called arguments boil down to this sentence: The apparent meaning of this verse is against what has already been established by rational proofs; therefore, it must be given a new meaning, against the apparent one.

This practice creates confusion; the logical sequence of the verses is disrupted, their semantic flow is disturbed and they seem to contradict each other. Thus both lose their validity.

It is known that there is no discrepancy in the Qur’an. If a certain explanation shows that two verses are contradictory to each other, the only defect would be in that explanation.

This has been termed, in many traditions, as hitting one part of the Qur’an with the other. See for example the following traditions:

8. It is narrated in al-Kāfī and Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from al-Ṣādiq from his father (peace be on them both) that he said: “A man does not hit a part of the Qur’an with the other (part) but that he becomes an infidel.”
9. Maʿānī al-akhbār, al-Maḥāsin (through their chains) and at-Tafsīr of al-ʿAyyāshī: al-Ṣādiq said: “A man does not hit a part of the Qur’an with the other (part) but that he becomes an infidel.”
10. al-Ṣadūq says that he asked Ibn al-Walīd what this tradition meant. He replied: “It is replying to a man concerning the exegesis of one verse, with the exegesis of another one.”

Author’s comment: This reply of Ibn al-Walīd is somewhat vague. If by this expression he means the above mentioned mixup—as the polemicists, argue by offering one verse “against” another, adhering to the one and explaining away the other—then he is correct. But if he wants to disallow explaining one verse with the help of the other and bringing the one as evidence for the other, then it is wrong, as may be seen from the following two traditions too:

11. It is narrated in Tafsīr of al-Nuʿmānī, through his chains to Ismāʿīl b. Jābir that he said: “I heard Abū ʿAbdillāh Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon them both) saying: ‘Verily, God—Benevolent and High is He—sent Muḥammad and ended with him (the chain of) the prophets thus there is no prophet after him; and He sent down to him a Book, and ended with it (the chain of) the Books; thus there is no (Divine) book after it. He allowed in it the lawful (things) and prohibited in it the unlawful; so its lawful is lawful up to the Day of Resurrection, and its unlawful is unlawful up to the Day of Resurrection; there is in it your shariah, and the information of the people (who passed away) before you and (who are to come) after you; and the Prophet (may God have mercy on him and his progeny!) appointed it as a standard (that will remain) for ever in his successors. But the people left them (those successors) although they were the witnesses over the people of all times; and they (that is, the people) deviated from them, then they killed them, and followed others and gave those others their unalloyed obedience. (This continued) till they extended their enmity to him who showed his love of those invested with authority (from God) and who sought their knowledge. God has said: … and [they] have forgotten a part of what they were admonished with, and you will not cease to be informed of deceit from among them (). And it is because they hit a part of the Qur’an with the other; and they argued with the abrogated (verse) thinking that it was the abrogating one, and debated with the help of the ambiguous thinking that it was the decisive; and offered a particularized verse for their argument assuming that it was a general one; and stuck at the beginning of a verse leaving aside the reason of its interpretation; and they did not see what was the beginning of the speech and what was its end; and they did not know its arrival or its departure, because they did not take it from its people; thus they went astray and misled others.

“And know, may God have mercy on you! that he who does not distinguish in the Book of God the abrogating verse from the abrogated one, and a specific from a general one, and a decisive from an ambiguous; and does not differentiate between a permission and an obligation, and does not recognize a verse of Meccan period from a Medinite one, and does not know the reasons of revelation; and does not understand the difficult words of the Qur’an (whether simple or compound); and does not comprehend (what has been hidden in it of) the knowledge of (Divine) decree and measure; and is ignorant of advancing and delaying (in its verses); and does not distinguish the clear from the deep, nor the manifest from the esoteric, nor the beginning from the termination; and is unaware of the question and the answer, the disjoining and the joining, and the exceptions and the all inclusive, and is ignorant of an adjective of a preceding (noun) that explains the subsequent one; and is unaware of the emphasized subject and the detailed one, the obligatory laws and the permissions, the places of the duties and rules, and the meaning of its lawful and unlawful (in which the unbelievers have perished); and does not know the joined words, and the words that are related to those coming before them, or after them—then such a man does not know the Qur’an; nor is he among the people of the Qur’an; And if someone claims knowledge of these variations, without a proof, then he is a liar, a doubting (person), and a fabricator of lies against God and His Messenger, and his resting place is the hell, and what an evil destination it is!”

12. It is written in Nahj al-balāghah and al-Iḥtijāj that ʿAlī said in a sermon: “When a legal problem is put before one of them he passes judgment on it according to his opinion. Then exactly the same problem comes before another of them and he gives an opposite verdict. Then these judges bring this matter to their leader who had appointed them and he confirms all their (contradictory) verdicts, although their God is one and their Prophet is one and their Book is one. Is it because God had ordered them to differ and they obeyed Him? Or He had prohibited them from it but they disobeyed Him? Or is it that God had sent an incomplete religion and sought their help to complete it? Or, they are His partners, so that it is their right to say and it is His duty to agree? Or is it that God sent a complete religion but the Prophet fell short of conveying it and handing it over (to the ummah)? And God,, the Glorified, says: We have not neglected anything in the Book (); and that in it is the clarification of everything; and He has said that one part of the Book confirms the other and that there is no discrepancy in it: And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy (). And verily, the exterior of the Qur’an is elegant and its esoteric (meaning) is deep. Its wonders cannot be enumerated, and its marvels will not cease; and the darkness cannot be removed except by it.”

Author’s comment: This narration clearly shows that every religious opinion and view must be based on the Qur’an. The sentence, “in it is the clarification of everything,” paraphrases a Qur’anic verse, (… and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything []).

13. Ibn Saʿd, Ibn al-Ḍurays (in his al-Faḍāʾil) and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather: “The Messenger of God appeared before a group who were bandying arguments about the Qur’an, and he was very angry and said: ‘This is how the nations before you went astray—they disputed with their prophets and hit one part of the book with the other.’ Then he said: ‘And verily the Qur’an has not been revealed so that its parts would contradict each other; rather, it has been revealed so that its part would confirm each other. Therefore, follow what you know (of it) and believe in what is ambiguous to you (from it):’ ” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
14. Aḥmad has narrated in another way from ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather that the Messenger of God heard some people disputing with one another. So, he said: “That is how those who were before you had perished; they hit one part of the Book of God over the other. And the Book of God has been revealed (and) its one part confirms the other; therefore, do not (try to) refute its one part with the other part. What you know of it, you should believe in it, and what you do not know of it, you should leave it to him who knows it.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)

Author’s comment: As you see, these traditions count “hitting one part of the Qur’an with the other” as opposite to “confirming some of its parts with the others.” In other words, this “hitting” refers to confusing the meanings of the verses, disturbing their aims and objects, mistaking, for example, the decisive verses for the ambiguous ones and vice versa. It means that speaking in the Qur’an according to one’s own opinion, and explaining the verses without knowledge (described in earlier quoted traditions) and hitting some parts of the Qur’an with the others (mentioned in the above traditions) refer to one and the same thing, that is, explaining the Qur’an with the help of other than the Qur’an.

Question: No doubt, the Qur’an was revealed so, that the people may comprehend and understand it. See, for example, these two verses: Surely We have revealed to you the Book with the truth for the sake of men … (); This is a clear statement for men ().

Also there is no doubt that it was the Prophet who had the authority to explain it. As God says: … and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them … (). And surely he explained it to his companions, who transmitted it to their disciples. What has come to us from the companions and their disciples is doubtlessly the explanation given by the Prophet, and we cannot disregard it, as the Qur’an tells us to follow what is given to us by the Prophet. As for those explanations which the companions gave us without ascribing them to the Prophet, it is true that they cannot have the same authority as the Prophet’s declarations; yet we feel more at ease with them (instead of looking for them on our own). Why? Because either they had heard it from the Prophet, or they were led to it by their expertise in religion—the expertise they had acquired from the Prophet’s instruction and exposition. The same applies to their disciples and the disciples’ disciples. Surely the meaning of the Qur’an could not be hidden from them—they had deep rooted knowledge of Arabic language; they were keen on learning the Qur’anic interpretation from the Prophet himself; and they strived their utmost to acquire the knowledge of religion. All this may be seen in biographical details of the early scholars of religion.

Looking at the above-mentioned details, we come to the conclusion that deviating from their method and tradition, going out of their company or explaining any verse in a way that is not found in their opinions and sayings, is an innovation; and that one must remain silent where they have not given any opinion.

What the companions and their direct and indirect disciples have said is enough for the purpose of understanding the Qur’an. There are thousands of traditions on exegesis, and al-Suyūṭī has counted some seventeen thousand traditions on this subject, narrated from the Prophet and his companions and their disciples.

Reply: Its reply may be inferred from what we have written earlier. There are numerous verses which invite the public in general, the believers as well as the unbelievers, those who were present at the time of revelation as well as those who came later or shall come in future, to understand the Qur’an and meditate and ponder on it. For example, see the verse which has been quoted repeatedly: Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy. It clearly shows that the Qur’anic knowledge may be acquired through meditation and contemplation; and that by this process the apparent discrepancy between the verses disappears completely. Remember that this verse puts a challenge to unbelievers that they would not find any discrepancy in the Qur’an if they pondered on it. And in this context they could not be advised to go to the companions and their disciples if they wanted to understand its meaning; nay, even the advice to refer to the Prophet would have been irrelevant: If the Prophet’s explanation were in conformity with the apparent meaning of the verse, then people would understand that meaning from the verse itself on meditation and contemplation—and there would be no need to refer to the Prophet. And if his explanation were against the apparent meaning of the Qur’an—a meaning that an average man would not understand from the words—then the challenge would be futile and the argument of the verse would not stand.

Of course, so far as the details of various Qur’anic laws are concerned, they cannot be known without the Prophet’s explanation, as the Qur’an itself says: … and whatever the Messenger gives you, take it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back … (). Also, the details of the Qur’anic stories and of the Day of Judgment depend on his exposition.

It shows that the Prophet’s responsibility, in this respect, was of teaching only. A teacher guides and helps his student in understanding what would be difficult to comprehend without his help. The teaching brings the meaning nearer to the mind; it does not create a meaning. The teacher arranges the subject matter to make it easier to comprehend, so that the student is not obliged to waste his time and energy in self-education—a proposition that carries with it a risk of wrong deductions. This aspect of the Prophet’s responsibilities is mentioned in many verses. For example, … and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect () …; And teaches them the Book and the Wisdom … (). The Prophet, therefore, teaches the people what the Qur’an itself says and the Divine Speech itself shows, and which the people themselves may understand even if it requires some meditation. It is not the Prophet’s function to bestow on the verses such meanings as cannot be normally understood from those words. Such an explanation would not conform with the following Qur’anic declarations: A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Qur’an for a people who know (); … and this is clear Arabic language ().

Then there are the traditions of the Prophet exhorting the Muslims to hold fast to the Qur’an and to verify with its help the traditions attributed to him. It necessarily follows that all what the Prophet has said may be known from the Qur’an. Otherwise, he could not tell us to check with it all the sayings attributed to him.

Now, if we say that understanding of the Qur’an depends on the Prophet’s explanation, it would be a vicious circle. The Qur’an would be understood only if explained by the traditions, but the authenticity of the tradition could be established only if one understands the Qur’an.

Now we come to the traditions narrated from the companions. First, we are faced with the problems concerning the chains of the narrators, because not all of them are free from one or the other defect. Second, the companions have differed a great deal with one another in their expositions of the Qur’an. Third, in many cases, divergent views have been ascribed to a single companion, as anyone may find out by looking in the books of traditions and exegesis. What is one supposed to do when faced with such discrepancies? We are told by these people that we should choose one of those diverse opinions and stick to it; that we should not destroy the “composite unanimity” of the companions, nor should we go outside their circle. But the trouble is that the companions themselves were not averse to differ from each other; then why should we not differ from them? They themselves never claimed that their opinions were vested with an authority which others were duty bound to accept; nor did they ever say that, although they differed from one another, others should not differ from them.

If we were stuck up with the Qur’anic exegesis narrated from the companions and their disciples, the forward march of knowledge would be arrested and academic research negated. Look at the explanations transmitted to us from the early scholars, and study the books of exegesis written in early centuries. You will find that they contain only simple word meanings, and are devoid of deep thoughts and fine ideas. If we stop at those explanations, where we can find the vast and deep knowledge mentioned in the verse: … and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything … ().

Then it is said that it is unthinkable that the companions did not know the meaning of the Qur’an, in spite of their keen interest in religious knowledge and their understanding and serious efforts in this way. But the very discrepancy in their various explanations belies this argument. Discrepancy and difference could not occur unless the truth was hidden from their eyes, and unless they were confused.

The truth is that the highway to the understanding of the Qur’an is wide open; and the Divine Speech itself leads one to its own understanding; it does not depend, for this purpose, on any other guide. It is a Book introduced by God as the guidance, the light and the clear explanation of everything. It cannot be said to need another guide, to seek illumination from another light or to depend on an outside factor for its own explanation.

Question: The correct traditions say that the Prophet said in his last sermon: “Certainly I am leaving among you two weighty things: The bigger one and the smaller one. As for the bigger one, it is the Book of God; and as for the smaller one, it is my progeny, the people of my house. Therefore, keep me in mind about these two things; because you shall never go astray so long as you hold fast to them.” This tradition has been narrated by both sects from a great many companions of the Messenger of God; it has come to us through so many chains that one can entertain no doubt about its authenticity. The traditionalists have counted that it has been narrated by thirty-five companions. Some narrations contain the sentence: “They shall not separate from one another till they come to me on the reservoir (that is, Kawthar).” This tradition proves that the words of Ahl al-Bayt on the Qur’an are a binding authority and that one must adhere to what has come down to us from them concerning the exegesis. Otherwise, one would be guilty of separating the Qur’an from the Ahl al-Bayt.

Reply: What was said earlier regarding the explanation of the Prophet applies here too. The tradition quoted in the question is not intended to negate the authority of the apparent meaning of the Qur’an, nor does it say that the exegesis given by the Ahl al-Bayt is the only authoritative explanation. The Prophet has used the words, “they shall not separate from one another.” It means that authority belongs to the Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt together; the Qur’an explains its meaning and makes manifest the Divine realities, and the Ahl al-Bayt guide to the true path and direct the people to the Qur’anic aims and goals.

Moreover, like the Prophet, the Ahl al-Bayt too have directed the Muslims to hold fast to the Qur’an, to meditate on it and to verify from it the traditions attributed to them.

Furthermore, a considerable number of the exegetical traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt themselves have used the method of explaining a verse with the help of the other. This method can be meaningful only if the Qur’anic verses may be understandable to an average man—provided the correct direction is followed.

Apart from these rational arguments, some traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt explicitly mention this fact. al-Barqī has narrated through his chains from Abū Labīd that Abū Jaʿfar said in a tradition: “Whoever thought that the Book of God was vague, fell in perdition and destroyed others.” Another tradition has been narrated in the same book as well as in al-Iḥtijāj that Abū Jaʿfar said: “When I narrate to you anything, you should ask me where it was in the Book of God …”

The above discourse makes it clear that there is no conflict between those traditions which say that the Qur’anic knowledge is not unintelligible and that it may be understood with the help of the Qur’anic verses themselves, and those which are apparently against it. For example, it is narrated in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī from Jābir that he said: “Abū ʿAbdillāh said: ‘Verily, the Qur’an has an interior, and for its interior there is an exterior.’ Then he said: ‘O Jābir! and there is nothing farther from the understanding of the men than it (that is, the Qur’an). Verily, a verse, its first (part) is revealed about one subject and its middle (part) about another thing, and its end about something else; and yet it is a well-connected speech, (that) revolves in various ways.’ ” This theme has been given in various other traditions. In some of them, the sentence, “and there is nothing farther from the understanding of the men …,” has been ascribed to the Prophet. Also, ʿAlī is reported as saying: “Verily, the Qur’an may be explained in many ways; it has many faces …”

It is clear that what has been allowed, nay, encouraged, is explaining it through its own path, and what has been forbidden is explaining it through another path. The prescribed way is exegesis of the Qur’an with the help of the Qur’an itself, explaining a verse with another verse. A man can do so only when he is well-versed in the traditions of the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt; it gives him correct perspective and creates in him a discriminating taste. It is after acquiring this taste that one may explain the Qur’an with confidence. And God is the best Guide.