Verses 68–86

Chapter 5: Al-Māʾidah (The Table) · Printed edition: Volume 11, pp. 73–128

The verses in themselves are inter-linked and appear to be in the same context. But they are not connected with the verse: And if they had kept up the Torah and the Gospel () even if we do not look at the verse: O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; (). As for the connection of the verse , you have known its details.

It is more likely that these verses run on the same track which is used by the preceding verses from the beginning of the chapter up to this point. Look at the theme of the verse (And certainly Allah made a covenant with the Children of Israel …) up to the end of the verses under discussion, and you will see that, except for a few intervening verses like those of wilāyah and tablīgh, etc.; all deal with the affairs of the People of the Book; and the same is the topic of the following verses up to the end of the chapter.

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَسْتُمْ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ حَتَّىٰ تُقِيمُوا التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ ۗ وَلَيَزِيدَنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ طُغْيَانًا وَكُفْرًا ۖ فَلَا تَأْسَ عَلَى الْقَوْمِ الْكَافِرِينَ ٦٨

(5:68) Say: “O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord”; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.

It is a common experience of human beings that when they want to perform a laborious and hard work that requires the use of utmost strength, they let their bodies or organs rely on some firmly fixed things. For example, if a man wants to pull a heavy thing, or to push, or remove it, or to carry it or make it stand, he firmly puts his feet on earth and then begins the work he has to do. He knows that if his feet are not firmly held by some strong surface, he will not be able to do his work.

If we apply the same principle in immaterial affairs, e.g., man’s spiritual activities, or psychological affairs, it would indicate that performance of great activities and prodigious deeds depends on a spiritual base, strong psychological foundation; that is, such actions depend on patience, firmness, high ambition and strong willpower. Likewise, man can succeed in his dealings with God only through true piety and desistence from forbidden things.

All this shows that the clause: “you have no ground to stand upon” (lit. you are not on anything), alludes to the fact that they do not rely on a thing which would keep their feet firmly in place in order that they could keep up the Torah and the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord. It signals that God’s religion and His commands are a heavy burden which man cannot easily pick up or bear on his shoulders without depending on a firm foundation and surface; he cannot keep the religion up merely by his desire. God has pointed to this heavy burden in relation to the noble Qur’an: Surely We will send down to you a weighty word. (); Had We sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of Allah, and We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect (); Surely We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to bear it, and were afraid thereof; and man undertook it, verily he was unjust ignorant ().

And He says in relation to the Torah, addressing Moses: … so take hold of it with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof; (). And He says addressing the Children of Israel: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness (). And He says addressing John: O John! Take hold of the Book with strength ().

The verse in short says that you do not have anything to rely upon in your desire to keep up the religion of God, which He has revealed to you in His Books. You could get that support if you practise piety, return to Him repeatedly through repentance time and again, hold fast to His cord, and rely on His pillar. But your attitude is contrary to it; you haughtily turn away from His worship and transgress His limits.

The same meaning appears from the verse: He has prescribed for you of the religion what He enjoined upon Noah, and that which We have revealed to you, and that which We enjoined upon Abraham and Moses and Jesus ... (). It makes it clear that the sum total of religion is what is mentioned in these words. Then it is followed by the admonition: that keep up the religion and be not divided therein (). It puts emphasis on unity and warns them of division and disunity. Then the verse says: hard to the polytheists is that which you call them to. It is because they do not like to see you united; it is hard for them to see you firm in obedience to religious commands. Then God further says: Allah chooses for Himself whom He pleases, and guides to Himself him who turns (to Him) frequently. It declares that keeping up the religion is not feasible without guidance from God. Only such a person is capable of doing it who repents to God, holds to His cord fast without breaking it, and returns to Him again and again. Then God says: And they did not become divided until after the knowledge had come to them, out of rivalry among themselves (). It shows that the only reason of their division and disunity and of their not keeping up to religion is their rivalry and envy and their transgressing the via media laid down for them.

God likewise mentions this factor in similar verses: Then set your face upright for religion in natural devotion (to truth), the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know—turning to Him, and be careful of (your duty to) Him, and keep up prayer and be not of the polytheists, of those who divided their religion and became sects; every party rejoicing in what they had with them (). This too clearly says that the means of keeping up the natural religion is to return to God and keeping the cord intact which attaches him to the divine presence, and not letting that cord be cut or severed at all.

He had pointed to this reality in the verses preceding these verses under discussion, where He had mentioned that God had cursed the Jews and was displeased with them because of their transgressing His limits; consequently He put enmity and hatred among them. Also, He has mentioned this theme particularly about the Christians in another context as He said in this verse: … therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the Day of Resurrection … ().

God had warned the Muslims of similar painful affliction that was to fall down on the People of the Book—the Jews and the Christians. He informed them that they shall never be able to keep up the Torah and the Gospel and what was revealed to them from their Lord. History testifies that what the Qur’an had foretold, has actually taken place. They are divided into untold denominations and their mutual enmity and hatred goes on unabated. So, God warned the Muslim ummah lest they follow in their track and their relation with God be severed and they do not return to God, as He said in the verse: Then set your face upright for religion in natural devotion … (), among many other verses in the same chapter 30.

We have elaborated on various verses of this theme in previous volumes of this book, and, God willing, some other verses will be explained in coming volumes.

As for the divine word: “and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and disbelief;” its explanation has already been given before. The clause: “grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people”, aims at giving consolation to the Prophet in the form of prohibition.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ ٦٩

(5:69) Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabaeans and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good—they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

Apparently, the word al-ṣābiūn in nominative case, is in conjunction with “those who believe.”

A group of grammarians says that the subject of inna (Surely) (in this instance: those who believe) cannot be placed in conjunction with another word of nominative case before its predicate is mentioned. But this verse disproves their view.

The verse aims at explaining that so far as the ultimate happiness is concerned, nomenclatures and titles have no effect on it. A group is called believers, another is named Jews, a third is labelled Sabaeans, and a fourth is branded Christians. But none of the titles will be of any benefit before God; the only quality needed is the belief in God, the Last Day, and good deeds.

In the first volume of this book, detailed discussion of this topic has been given under the verse 62 of chapter 2.

لَقَدْ أَخَذْنَا مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَأَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ رُسُلًا ۖ كُلَّمَا جَاءَهُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰ أَنْفُسُهُمْ فَرِيقًا كَذَّبُوا وَفَرِيقًا يَقْتُلُونَ ٧٠

(5:70) Certainly We made a covenant with the Children of Israel and We sent to them messengers; whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, some (of them) did they call liars and some they used to slay.

This and the following verses describe the condition of the People of the Book, as a proof of what has been said in the preceding verse: O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Torah ... It is because the crimes and sins committed by them (as mentioned in the verse under discussion) have cut asunder any connection that they might have had with their Lord; consequently they are not in a position to keep up the Books of God or to rely on them.

Another possibility: The verses may be connected with the preceding one (Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabaeans and the Christians ... ). Accordingly, it would confirm that the names and titles would not avail anyone at all in the matter of actual bliss and happiness; had it been of any benefit it would have prevented them from slaying the prophets and calling them liars, and would have protected them from perils of mischief and hazards of sins.

Also, possibly these verses may be taken as an elaboration of the verse: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabaeans and the Christians …, which in its turn could be an elaboration of the verse: O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon ... The meaning is clear.

The clauses: some (of them) did they call liars and some they used to slay. Obviously, the words “some” in both clauses are the objects of the verbs coming after them. These objects have been put before their verbs to show their importance. The sentences in normal sequence will be as follows: they did call some of them liars and used to slay some others. The whole phrase completes the preceding clause: whenever there came to them a messenger ... The meaning is as follows: Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their hearts did not like or desire, they stood against him haughtily and rejected his call; they dealt with the messengers, sent to them, in two ways: some of them they called liars and some others they used to kill.

(al-Ṭabrisī) writes in Majmaʾ al-bayān:

“If it is asked: ‘Why did God put a future tense in conjunction with a past tense, (as the clauses should literally be translated as follows), some of them did they call liars and some they will slay?’ Then the reply is as follows: ‘This style was used to show that it is their confirmed habit; it actually means: They called them liars and killed them and will call others liars and kill them. Apart from that, yaqtulūn (they will slay) comes at the end of the verse and therefore it was necessary to make it rhyme to other such endings.’”

وَحَسِبُوا أَلَّا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ فَعَمُوا وَصَمُّوا ثُمَّ تَابَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ ثُمَّ عَمُوا وَصَمُّوا كَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بَصِيرٌ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ ٧١

(5:71) And they thought that there would be no affliction, so they became blind and deaf; then Allah turned to them mercifully, but (again) many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do.

It completes the topic of the preceding verse. al-Ḥusbān (reckoning, thinking); al-fitnah (an ordeal that beguiles a man, or evil and tribulation in general); al-’amā (blindness; here it indicates not seeing the truth, not differentiating between good and evil). al-Ṣamam (deafness; here it means not listening to admonition, indifference to good advice). This blindness and deafness have been caused by their delusion that there would be no affliction; and apparently that delusion had emanated from their vanity and conceit that they had a special status before God because they were from the seed of Israel, and they were sons and beloveds of God. Therefore, no evil would fall to them no matter what they did and what they indulged in.

The meaning of the verse then is as follows—and God knows better: They, because of their vanity that they enjoyed the prestige of Jewishness, thought that they would not be afflicted by any evil, and would not be put on trial no matter what they did; this thought and delusion blinded their eyes—so they cannot see the truth—and deafened their ears—so they cannot listen to their Prophets’ call which would have benefited them.

This interpretation favors what we have said earlier that these verses are a sort of proof of the verse: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews … It shows in short that names and titles are not to avail anyone anything. Look at these Jews who thought that they had a special prestige because they were Jews; yet this delusion did not do them any good, rather it made them blind and deaf and led them to perils of destruction and tribulation when they called the Prophets of God liars and murdered them.

then Allah turned to them mercifully, but (again) many of them became blind and deaf; and Allah is well seeing what they do: (As explained in Eng. vol.8, al-Tawbah means to return. When a servant of God repents from his sin, he returns to God seeking forgiveness, and when God accepts that repentance, He returns to the servant with mercy.) It shows that God had removed them away from His mercy and care, and therefore they got involved in that delusion which resulted in their blindness and deafness. But God turned to them second time accepting their repentance, and they were freed from that delusion and their eyes and ears were cured of that blindness and deafness respectively. Then they recognized themselves, knew that they were servants of God and they had no prestige or status except through piety. So they saw the truth, and listened to divine admonition delivered by the tongues of the Prophets. Thus, they realized that mere names and titles would never bring any benefit to anyone.

Again many of them became blind and deaf.

God has ascribed blindness and deafness first to the whole group, and then to many of them. It is based on justice in speech.

First: It shows that the ascription of blindness and deafness to the whole group uses the style of attaching the majority’s attribute to the whole, because in reality only majority, and not the whole group, has this attribute.

Second: It however indicates that the said blindness and deafness had covered the whole group in the beginning.

Third: It shows that God’s turning to them with mercy was not in vein, and had not passed away without benefit, without any effect. Rather some of them were saved through repentance, and that is why that minority had remained immune from the blindness and deafness that had affected the majority the second time.

God ends the verse on the clause: and God is well seeing what they do; it proves that nothing can make God oblivious of realities. When persons, other than God, bestow an honor to a group, it puts a veil on their eyes, which prevents them from seeing any defect or drawback in that group. But God is not like that; He is the All-Seeing; He sees all aspects and facets; an outward appearance does not hide other inner layers from Him.

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۖ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ ۖ إِنَّهُ مَنْ يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ ۖ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنْصَارٍ ٧٢

(5:72) Certainly they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary”; and the Messiah said: “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.”

It further explains that the Christians did not get any benefit from calling themselves Christians and tracing their origin to the Christ; as in spite of these factors, they were counted as disbelievers, because they ascribed partners to God and did not believe in Him in true sense, when they said: Surely God is the Christ, son of Mary.

The Christians have differed among themselves in explaining as to how the Christ comprises the essence of divinity. Some say that the Person of the Christ (that is, the knowledge) had branched out from the Person of the Lord (that is, the life); and this is the meaning of one of them being the Father, and the other being the Son. Some others say that the Lord was transformed and changed into the Christ. A third group says that the Lord became incarnate in the Christ. We have described this topic in detail while writing about Jesus, son of Mary, in the chapter of “The House of ‘Imrān”, in the third volume.

However, each of the three views fits this clause: “Certainly they disbelieve who say: ‘Surely God, He is the Messiah, son of Mary.’” Obviously therefore, all the Christians are included in this verdict of disbelief, because all believe in his divinity and have exceeded the limits. In short, this verse does not speak about those only who believe in incarnation.

The description of the Messiah as the son of Mary proves—or at least indicates—how and why they became disbelievers; it was because they believed in divinity of a man, son of a woman, both of whom were created from dust. How can dust become the Lord of Lords?

... and the Messiah said: “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord, and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust: This argument proves their disbelief and rebuts their view through the Messiah’s own words. When he said: Worship God, my Lord and your Lord ..., he clearly showed that he himself is a created servant like them and in the same way he needs a Lord Who would look after all his affairs and manage them. Then he said: Surely whoever associates (others) with God, then God has forbidden to him the garden ...; thus he declared that whoever ascribes a partner to God, he becomes a polytheist and the garden is forbidden to him.

God quotes the Messiah as saying: “then God has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust” This quotation refutes what they say about atonement. They believe that the Christ atoned the Christians’ sins by offering his own self as redemption and that is why he was crucified. The beliefs of atonement and crucifixion have assured them that all their sins are forgiven in advance. They are not obliged to follow the divine law, since they would go directly to the garden, and the fire will not touch them at all. (We have described all these things under the chapter of “The House of ‘Imrān”, in the above mentioned volume of our book.)

What the verse quotes Jesus as saying may be seen in different chapters of the Gospels, example, the order to believe in One God, refutation of polytheistic worship, and the declaration that the unjust people would abide in the Fire.

لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلَاثَةٍ ۘ وَمَا مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ إِلَّا إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۚ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَنْتَهُوا عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ٧٣

(5:73) Certainly they disbelieve who say: “Surely Allah is the third of the three”; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

That is, He is one of the three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and He corresponds with each of the three. It intrinsically results from their saying that the Father is god, the Son is god and the Holy Ghost is god; and He is three and He is one. They try to give the example of the sentence: Verily Zayd son of ʿAmr is man. Now, there are three things in this statement: Zayd, son of ʿAmr and man, and at the same time there is only one person to whom all three attributes are applied. But they are oblivious of the fact that if this plurality were real (not based on a subjective approach), then the persons too should have been plural; and when the said person is in reality one, then the plurality would be based on the subjective approach, and would never be real. It is beyond human understanding to imagine that Zayd combines in himself the real singularity and the real plurality at the same time.

And probably that is the reason why some Christian missionaries say that the trinity in which they believe, is an idea, which has come to them from the early fathers of the Church, and that it is a claim that cannot be proved through rational arguments or logic. They do not realize that it is incumbent on men to demand proof for any claim they hear, no matter whether it has reached them from their elders or from the coming and there is no god but one God: It is a rebuttal of their saying that God is the third of the three. It portrays that the Sublime Person of God cannot accept or admit any plurality by any means. He is One in His Person; even when His noble adjectives are attributed to Him, or His good names are ascribed to Him; it does not add anything to His One Person. Also when an adjective is added to another adjective, it does not create any numerousness or plurality in His Person. He is One Person and is not divisible at all—neither in reality nor in imagination or in reason. God is not such as may be divided into such and such parts or ingredients; nor anything can be ascribed to Him that He could become two or more. How can it be? Because it is God Who has made that thing which one wants to attach to Him in reality, imagination, or supposition.

God, the High, is One in His Person. But it is not the numerical oneness that the created things have and which gives rise to plurality and multitude. Nor is He subject to numerousness in His Person or name or adjective. How can it be? Because this numerical oneness, and the plurality which results from this unity, both are the effects of His making and His innovation. How then can He accept the attributes, which He Himself has created?

The sentence: and there is no god but one God, affirms the oneness of God with an emphasis and intensity not possible in other expressions: The sentence begins with negation followed by exception, which in itself is sufficient for emphasis; then the preposition min (from) is added to the particle of negation which further emphasizes all inclusiveness of the statement. And lastly the clause: “one God”, is used as common noun which denotes species of oneness; if it were used as proper noun, that is, except the one God, it would not have expressed the intended essence of unity.

The meaning then is as follows: There does not exist in the genes of god any species except one God Whose Oneness does not accept any plurality at all—neither in person nor in attributes, neither in reality nor in supposition. If God had said: There is no god but the One God, it would not have refuted the Christians’ claim that “God is the third of the three”, because they do not deny His Unity; yet they say that He is one being which has three Persons, He is One although He is three in reality.

The Christians’ supposition can be rebutted only when we prove the unity from which no plurality can be formed; and it is this unity which the Qur’an asserts in the sentence: “and there is no god but One God.”

It is a very fine theme to which the divine Book eludes concerning the reality of unity; and we shall further discuss it thoroughly in a special Qur’anic Discussion, then in a rational one followed by a traditional one.

… and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve: Apparently, the verse threatens them with a painful chastisement of the hereafter.

It is a fact that the theory of Trinity (as contained in the sentence, God is the third of the three) is beyond the understanding of general public. Most of the Christians receive it as a religious creed accepting its verbal formula without understanding, or hoping ever to understand, its meaning; and it is beyond the capacity of unimpaired reason to comprehend it properly. The mind places it side by side with other impossible suppositions, like a man who is no-man, a number that is neither one nor more, neither odd nor even. That is why the general Christian public accepts it without looking at its meaning. As for their expressions—God the Father, God the son—they take it as a matter of protocol. Such people, in fact, are not trinitarians; they merely utter the words and cling to it without thinking. But the position of their elite class is quite different. It is they whom God says are responsible for creating discord in religion because of their internal rivalry. He says: … that keep up the religion and be not divided therein; … And they did not become divided until after the knowledge had come to them out of rivalry among themselves … ().

Accordingly, the real disbelief (which does not emanate from being deemed weak), which entails rejection of the belief in Unity of God and denial of divine communications, applies to some—not all—of them. And God has addressed the threat of everlasting fire to only those who disbelieve and deny the divine communications, as He says: And (as to) those who disbelieve in, and deny Our signs, they are the inmates of the Fire, in it they shall abide (). There are many such verses, and we have explained this topic fully under the verse 98 of the chapter 4.

Probably, that is why the verse under discussion threatens only a particular group, and not all, of the disbelievers. Or it may be an indication that there were some Christians who did not believe in Trinity, and accepted Jesus Christ only as a servant of God and His Messenger, as the history records about the Ethiopian Christians, for example.

The meaning: If the Christians do not desist from what they say (it ascribes the belief of some people to the whole community), then those among them who disbelieve (that is, believe in Trinity) shall be afflicted with a painful chastisement.

Some exegetes have opined: The clause: “a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve”, uses the noun in place of pronoun; it wants to say “shall befall them”, but has used “shall befall those among them”, in order to show that such thought is disbelief, and that this disbelief has invited the threatened punishment.

Comment: There would have been no difficulty in agreeing with this opinion if the verse itself had not begun with the words: Certainly they disbelieve who say …

No less far fetched is another opinion that the phrase: those among them who disbelieve, actually means, those who disbelieve and they are these; it is a claim without proof.

أَفَلَا يَتُوبُونَ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَهُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ٧٤

(5:74) Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

It exhorts them to repent and seek God’s forgiveness and reminds them of His pardon and mercy. Alternatively, the question may stand for admonition, or for denial, that is, they do not turn to God nor do they seek His forgiveness.

مَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌۖ كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ ۗ انْظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الْآيَاتِ ثُمَّ انْظُرْ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ ٧٥

(5:75) The Messiah, son of Mary is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the signs clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

It is a rebuttal of their claim that “Surely Allah is the third of the three,” or of this together with earlier mentioned claim that: “Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Mary.” These claims are based on the belief that Messiah has got in him the essence of divinity. The verse under discussion proves that Messiah is not different from other messengers of God who had appeared before him and whom God had given death. All of them, including Messiah, were human beings, mortals, who were sent by God for guidance of mankind, and none of them was a Lord apart from God. Likewise his mother, Mary, was a truthful woman who attested to the truth of the divine signs and she too was a mortal human being. Both Messiah and his mother used to eat food; and eating food with all that it entails, is words, based on the foundation of ‘need.’ ‘Need’ is the first sign of transience, and the ‘needy’ is something made and transient. In other words, Messiah was a transient, born of a transient; he was a servant and messenger of God, born from his mother; both mother and son worshipped God, and proceeded in their lives on the path of need and dependence—in short they were not Lords.

The Gospels accept the above reports. They clearly say that Mary was a young lady who believed in, and worshipped, God. They declare that Jesus was born of her, as a human from another human. They further assert that God sent Jesus to the mankind not unlike all other messengers. Also, they make it clear that Jesus and his mother used to eat food. These are the phenomena, which the Gospels explicitly declare, and they prove that he was a servant and a messenger of God.

Possibly the verse may be aiming at refuting the idea of divinity of Jesus and his mother both; because the verse: And when Allah will say: “O Jesus son of Mary! Did you say to men, ‘Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah?’” (), clearly shows that there were some people at that time who believed in the divinity of Mary too side by side with that of Jesus.

Or, the expression, taking Mary for god, may have been used in the same meaning as in the verse (), which says: They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah. It actually points to their total submission to their scholars in a manner, which reason and sharīʾah do not approve.

Be it as it may. The verse accordingly altogether refutes their belief that Jesus and his mother were lords, declaring that Jesus was only a messenger like other messengers, his mother was a truthful woman, both used to consume food; and all these facts speak against their divinity.

The clause: the messengers before him have indeed passed away ..., reinforces the proof of his humanity, by pointing out that he is subject to life and death like other preceding messengers.

See how We make the signs clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away: The verse is addressed to the Prophet, and draws his attention to a strange phenomenon. See how God offers the clearest explanation of the clearest proof that negates the Christians’ claim of the Christ’s divinity, and then see how they refuse to understand these proofs. How long will they turn a blind eye to this reality? How long will their intellect remain oblivious to the falsity of their claim?

قُلْ أَتَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا ۚ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ ٧٦

(5:76) Say: “Do you worship besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm or any profit? And Allah—He is the Hearing, the knowing.”

Submission to the idea of Lordship was wide spread among the mankind since the earliest days, and especially among the general public that public worshipped idols, hoping that through that worship, the Lord would ward off evil from them and bring them benefits, as the historical researches of ancient eras have shown. So far as the worship of God—because He is God—was concerned, it was not found beyond a small circle of some chosen servants like the prophets and the divine scholars among their nations.

It is in this background that God orders His Messenger to talk to them exactly as a simple man is talked to, who follows the dictates of his simple primitive nature regarding the divine worship. It is the same manner in which He had addressed the idol-worshipers. He reminds them that what had led the man to the divine worship was his awareness that God holds the reins of good and evil, profit and harm in His hand; and man hopes to avoid harms and obtain benefits through the worship of God.

And clearly nothing besides God owns or controls any benefit or harm, because everything is owned by God and has no power whatsoever of its own. Therefore, how can any such thing be selected for worship and joined with God, the Lord, for submission? God is the Owner of him and the others, and it was necessary that He (God) should be worshipped exclusively, without extending this homage to others. It is only God who hears and answers; He hears the call of the servant and answers it; it is He who is fully aware of the needs of His servants, and neither ignores it nor is confused in it contrary to what others do—because others own only that which God gives into their possession, and can do only that which God empowers them to do.

The above discourse has made it clear that:

First: The proof contained in this verse is quite separate from the one contained in the preceding verse (The Messiah, … is but a messenger, … and his mother was a truthful women; they both used to eat food), although both depend on a common premise, that is, the Messiah and his mother both were transients and needy. The preceding verse, quoted in square brackets above, argues that they both were mortals, needy and obedient servants of God, and anyone with such attributes cannot be a Lord or worthy of being worshipped. And the verse under discussion argues that the Messiah is a transient and needy person who himself is owned by God, and has no control on any benefit or harm. And a person in this situation cannot be accepted as a Lord or worthy of worship.

Second: The argument is based on what a simple man expects from his acts of worship, because his only aim in accepting someone as his Lord, and in worshipping Him is to ward off possible harms and acquire possible gains. But the power to control harm and benefit belongs exclusively to God. So why should anyone worship other than God? It is essential that such submission and worship (that is, to other than God) be totally rejected.

Third: In the clause: that which does not control for you any harm or any profit, the relative pronoun mā (that, which) has been used, which is reserved for other than rational beings, even though the Messiah was a rational person. It is because the same proof is used against those who worship insensate things, like idol-worshipers; and the Messiah’s rationality has no effect on the perfection of this proof—it is applicable against all “worshipped” things other than God.

Moreover, the creatures (all things besides God) even if they do have perception and understanding, do not possess that perception and understanding by their own power, nor do they own other aspects of their ‘being’. God says: Surely those whom you call on besides Allah are in a state of subjugation, like yourselves; therefore call on them, then let them answer you if you are truthful. Have they feet with which they walk, or have they hands with which they strike, or have they eyes with which they see, or have they ears with which they hear? Say: “Call your associates, then make a struggle (to prevail) against me and give me no respite” (7:194–5).

In the clause: any harm or any profit, harm precedes profit; this too follows the same pattern to which the simple primitive nature invites, as described above. Man by nature thinks that whatever blessings and benefits he has got are owned by him, are his to remain; he does not imagine that these benefits might be lost, and does not anticipate the sorrow or pain that would follow that loss. But as for the harm which he presently experiences, and the benefits and blessings which are lost and he presently feels the pain of that loss, the nature alerts him to take refuge in a Lord Who would ward off that loss and harm, and would restore the lost blessings; as God says: And when affliction touches a man, he calls on Us, whether lying on his side or sitting or standing; but when We remove his affliction from him, he passes on as though he had never called on Us on account of an affliction that touched him; (). And if We make him taste mercy from Us after distress that has touched him, he would most certainly say: “This is of me …” (). And when We show favor to man, he turns aside and withdraws himself; and when evil touches him, he makes lengthy supplications ().

It all proves that a touch of affliction induces a man to submit to the Lord and worship him, rather more than gaining a profit does. That is why in the clause: “that which does not control for you any harm or any profit”, ‘harm’ precedes ‘profit’. The same reason applies to other similar expressions, like: And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death, nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life ().

Fourth: The complete verse: Say: ‘Do you worship besides God … the Knowing,’ proves that worship is exclusively reserved for God, and none else should be joined with Him in it. This short verse actually contains two proofs: One, Submission to a God and worshipping Him is resorted to for averting harm and acquiring benefit; as such, it is necessary that the worshipped God should control the harm and benefit. Therefore, it is not correct to worship one who has no control on anything. Two, only God is the Hearing, Who answers the call of the distressed, and knows the true nature of his need; none other than God has this attribute. Therefore, it is necessary to worship Him exclusively, without joining others to Him.

قُلْ يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ غَيْرَ الْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا أَهْوَاءَ قَوْمٍ قَدْ ضَلُّوا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَأَضَلُّوا كَثِيرًا وَضَلُّوا عَنْ سَوَاءِ السَّبِيلِ ٧٧

(5:77) Say: “O People of the Book! Be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path.”

Another call to the Prophet, ordering him to invite the People of the Book to abandon immoderation in their religion. The People of the Book, and especially the Christians, are entangled in it. The divine religion, as explained by His revealed Books, orders the people to believe in one God Who has no partner, and forbids believing in any partner to Him. The People of the Book, the Jews, and the Christians in general, were afflicted with this disease, although the condition of the Christians was more ignominious and abominable. God says: And the Jews say: “Ezra is the son of Allah”; and the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah”; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Mary; and they were not enjoined but that they should worship one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him), ().

Although the belief, that Ezra is the son of God, is apparently not found today in the Jewish community, but the verse testifies that such as belief was prevalent at the time of the Qur’anic revelation.

Apparently, son of God was an honorific title which they used for Ezra, in view of the valuable services he rendered and the good he did to them: He brought them back to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity; and rewrote the Torah after it was lost in the devastative attack of Nebuchanazzar. The Jews treated the sonship of God as an honorific title, in the same way as the Christians nowadays treat “fatherhood”, as they call the Popes, bishops and priest Fathers—the word Pope itself means father. God says: And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and his beloved ones (). Further, the verse quoted earlier (They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Mary) indicates it, as it mentions only the Messiah, but not Ezra. It means that Ezra is included in the expression:(their doctors of law and their monks. In other words they called Ezra the son of God in the same sense as they name their scholars and monks as sons of God. However, they chose to mention his name in particular because he had done much good to them, as described above.

In short, they had placed some of their prophets, scholars and monks on the throne of lordship, and submitted to them in a manner that is reserved exclusively for God. It was their inordinacy in religion that God forbids them here through his Prophet.

The phrase: unduly immoderate in your religion, if literally translated would be written as, immoderate without truth in your religion. In fact, immoderation is always without truth, it can never be with truth. Yet, here the Qur’an qualifies it with the word, unduly or without truth, in order to put emphasis on the prohibition of immoderation; and also to remind the hearer of a concomitant item with its principal—after all, he had forgotten or nearly forgotten this indispensability when he indulged in inordinacy.

The reason does not reject the idea of using the word, father, for God, provided its meaning is purified of all material and physical defects and stigmas—if it is taken in the meaning of “One who has control on creation and upbringing.” The same applies to the word, son, when used for God in its non-physical sense. But the sharīʾah strictly forbids use of these words for God, because we are obliged to use only those names for Him, which He has approved. We cannot use self-invented names or titles for Him, because it would lead to corruption and scandals. We have only to look at the Jews and the Christians—and especially the latter to realize how much depravity they were afflicted with through the Church ‘fathers’ in all those long centuries. The things are not much better even today!

… and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path: Apparently the context shows that the people who went astray before and whose low desires were not to be followed, were the leaders whose opinions and orders were obeyed. They themselves went astray by holding fast to their views and opinions, and led many astray as others followed them. Thus, their going astray from the right path was the sum total of their going astray and leading astray—it was a compound error.

Also, the context shows that the people whose low desires were not to be followed were the idol-worshipers. The verse is addressed to the whole community of the People of the Book and not only to those who were contemporaries of the Prophet. So, it cannot be said that their later generations are here admonished not to follow their forefathers. This interpretation is supported, rather it is proved, by the words of God: And the Jews say: “Ezra is the son of Allah”; and the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah”; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before ().

This is then the historical fact as analyzed by the Qur’an. It indicates that the belief in divine fatherhood and sonship has infiltrated into People of the Book from the idol-worshipers who had passed before them. We have described in the third volume of this book (in chapter 3, story of Jesus) that this belief was prevalent among the Hindus and the Buddhists of India and China, as well as in ancient Egypt and other places. Then, gradually, it was brought into Christian community, clothed in religious dress by its religious leaders. The name remained monotheistic and the meaning became idolatrous.

لُعِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ عَلَىٰ لِسَانِ دَاوُودَ وَعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوْا وَكَانُوا يَعْتَدُونَ ٧٨ كَانُوا لَا يَتَنَاهَوْنَ عَنْ مُنْكَرٍ فَعَلُوهُ ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ ٧٩

(5:78–79) Those who disbelieved from among the Children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, son of Mary; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did.

It reveals that their prophets cursed the disbelievers from among them. It adversely alludes to the Jews who were cursed by their own prophets, and it was because they exceeded the limit, and continued in this transgression generation after generation. The words: “They used not to forbid evil was that which they did”, explain that transgression.

تَرَىٰ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ لَبِئْسَ مَا قَدَّمَتْ لَهُمْ أَنْفُسُهُمْ أَنْ سَخِطَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَفِي الْعَذَابِ هُمْ خَالِدُونَ ٨٠

(5:80) You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

It is a perceivable proof that they had exceeded the limit. If they had any respect for their religion, they would have adhered to it and not exceeded its limit. As a concomitant of that, it was necessary for them to befriend those who believe in one God, and avoid those who disbelieve. If a nation respects some things and considers them sacred, and another group has animosity towards those things, this group would be an enemy of the nation. Now, if that nation befriends this group, it would mean that the nation had abandoned that thing which it hitherto considered sacred. And a friend of enemy is enemy. Then God condemns them in these words: “certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them.” It points to their befriending the disbelievers as because of their low desires. Consequently, its recompense was, “that God became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.” The verse has put the recompense in place of action. It is as though their souls had sent for them the recompense by sending ahead the action.

وَلَوْ كَانُوا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالنَّبِيِّ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مَا اتَّخَذُوهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ وَلَٰكِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ ٨١

(5:81) And had they believed in Allah and the Prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends, but most of them are transgressors.

If these People of the Book had believed in God and the Prophet Muḥammad and what was revealed to him; or if they had believed in their own prophet, example, Moses and what was revealed to him, that is, the Torah, they would not have taken those disbelievers for friends, because Islam cuts asunder all worldly ties; but most of them are transgressors, recalcitrants from belief.

Some people have suggested another explanation: They have taken the pronouns in “they believed” and “them (for friends)”, as referring to “those who disbelieve” (in the preceding verse). Accordingly, the meaning will be as follows: If those disbelievers, whom the People of the Book have taken for friends, had believed in God, the Prophet Muḥammad and the Qur’an, these People of the Book would not have taken them for friends. They have only befriended them because they disbelieve in the Prophet and the Qur’an.

Comment: There is no difficulty in accepting this interpretation, but the end phrase: “but most of them are transgressors”, does not agree with it.

لَتَجِدَنَّ أَشَدَّ النَّاسِ عَدَاوَةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا ۖ وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُمْ مَوَدَّةً لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهْبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ ٨٢

(5:82) Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: “We are Christians”; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

God has described in the preceding verses the depravities found in the People of the Book in general, and some which apply to only a particular group among them, example, the saying of the Jews that the hand of God is tied up; and the saying of the Christians that surely God, He is the Messiah son of Mary. Now, He describes their attitude vis-à-vis the believers and Islam; and adds to it the attitude of the polytheists, in order to present a complete picture of the non-Muslim communities’ mental disposition towards Islam, and how near or far they are from accepting it. Its sum total is that the Christians are the nearest of all those groups in friendship to the Muslims and readier to listen to the call of the truth.

They have been counted as the nearest in friendship to the believers, because a group of them did believe in the Holy Prophet as the next verse shows: And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! We believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth) ().

However, if acceptance of faith by a group can justify its ascription to the whole community, then the Jews and the polytheists too must be joined with the Christians in this matter, because a Jewish group led by ʿAbdullāh b. Salām had entered into Islam, and so had a lot of the polytheists of Arabia—in fact, the latter formed the majority of the Muslims at that time. In this background, singling the Christians out for the praise contained in the above verse—to the exclusion of the Jews and polytheists—points to their sincere acceptance of the call of Islam, even when they had other options than entering into Islam: they could have opted to continue on their religion and pay jizyah, or to fight against Islam.

The case of the polytheists was totally different, because they had no alternative to acceptance of Islam (or to fight). In this situation, the fact that the majority of Muslims had come from that group does not prove that they had entered into Islam sincerely. This is quite apart from the sufferings they inflicted upon the Prophet and the tortures they wreaked on Muslims.

Coming to the Jews, although they had the same alternatives as the Christians, and they could remain on their religion with payment of jizyah, yet they continued in their haughtiness, became harder in their bigotry, and turned to double dealing and deception. They broke their covenants, eagerly waited calamities to befall the Muslims and dealt to them bitterest deal.

The attitude the Christians had towards the Prophet and the Muslims, and their attraction to Islam; and also the enmity of the Jews and polytheists toward the divine religion and their sustained arrogance and bigotry, have continued exactly in the same manner even after the Prophet. Innumerable were the Christians who answered the call to Islam during the past centuries, while the number of the Jews and the polytheists was so insignificant. These unchanged characteristics in both groups confirm what the Mighty Book had indicated.

The verse: Certainly you will find the most violent …, lays down a general all-inclusive principle, although it is addressed to the Prophet alone. It is the style used in many preceding verses: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve … (); And you will see many of them striving with one another … (). All these verses use the second person singular pronoun; but their connotation is general.

… this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly: al-Qissīs (priest, clergyman); al-ruhbān is plural of al-rāhib, sometimes it is used as singular. al-Rāghib has said:

“al-rahbah and al-ruhb mean to fear with cautiousness … al-tarahhub (devoutness); al-ruhbāniyyah (excessive devotion based on extreme fear (of God); monasticism). God says: and (as for) monasticism, they innovated it (). al-Ruhbān is used both as a singular and a plural; those who take it as singular, make its plural ruhābīn.”

God has given three reasons for the Christians being the nearest in friendship to the believers, and of their geniality and cordiality towards the Muslims; these reasons are their exclusive attributes, which are not found in the Jews and the polytheists:

1. There are priests among them.
2. They are monks and ascetics.
3. They are not proud.

These three are the keys to prepare them for felicity.

The felicity of religious life depends on good deeds, which emanate from knowledge. You may say: that felicity is achieved when one believes in the Truth and acts accordingly. He, first of all, needs knowledge in order to perceive the right of religion and it is the religion of truth. However, mere perception of truth is not enough to prepare him to act according to its dictates unless and until man removes from his soul the opposite factors, that is, the arrogance which prevents him from submitting to truth, the bigotry, prejudice, and other such things. When man is armed with beneficial knowledge, and becomes ready to deal justly vis-à-vis the truth by discarding haughtiness and arrogance, then he is ready to submit to the truth by acting according to its demands provided the environment is not incompatible to it, because compatibility of environment with action has great effect on that action. The activities, which are performed, by the society, where children grow up in that atmosphere; their sub-conscience forms a habit to go on doing it and it continues generation after generation. The conscious mind is not given a chance to think over it, to ponder or meditate as to how to get rid of that habit—even if he understands that the habit is harmful and against his felicity. The same is the case of good deeds and activities if they become deep-rooted in the society—it is extremely difficult to neglect them. That is why it is said that habit is second nature. Also it is because of this factor that when one intends to do something, which one does not like, it seems very difficult to accomplish, but with each repetition its difficulty is decreased.

When a man, therefore, makes sure that a certain deed is correct and good, and removes from his soul the tendency of obstinacy and stubbornness by negating haughtiness, then it will be fully helpful to him if he sees another person doing that deed, as it would prove to him that the said deed is not beyond his own power.

This shows that the society will be ready to accept a truth if there are in it knowledgeable persons who know it and teach it, and there are people who act upon that truth, so that general public ascertains that the deed is not impossible and is really good, and finally the general public is accustomed to submit to the truth and not to be too proud to accept it when it appears before their eyes.

It is because of these factors that God has said about Christians that they are nearer to accept the call of the true religion because they have their religious scholars and monks who do not behave proudly. Their scholars continue to teach them cognizance of truth and realities of religion—verbally. Their ascetics remind them the greatness of their Lord and the importance of their felicity in this world and the next—practically. And they do not have pride and haughtiness, which would prevent them from accepting the truth.

As for the Jews, they had their own scholars, no doubt; but they behaved proudly, and their arrogance and stubbornness did not let them be prepared for accepting the truth.

And as for the polytheists, they did not have any religious scholar or ascetics, and on top of that, they did behave arrogantly.

وَإِذَا سَمِعُوا مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ تَرَىٰ أَعْيُنَهُمْ تَفِيضُ مِنَ الدَّمْعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُوا مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۖ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا آمَنَّا فَاكْتُبْنَا مَعَ الشَّاهِدِينَ ٨٣

(5:83) And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you will see their eyes over-flowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: “Our Lord! We believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth).

Eyes overflowing with tears that is, shedding plentiful tears; min in min al-dam’ (with tears) denotes beginning; and in mimmā ‘arafū (that they recognize) shows emergence; and in mina ‘l-ḥaqq (of the truth) gives the explanation.

وَمَا لَنَا لَا نُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَمَا جَاءَنَا مِنَ الْحَقِّ وَنَطْمَعُ أَنْ يُدْخِلَنَا رَبُّنَا مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الصَّالِحِينَ ٨٤

(5:84) And what (reason) have we that we should not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come to us, while we earnestly desire that our Lord should cause us to enter with the good people?.”

The word, “cause us to enter”, implies the meaning, put us/place us; that is why it is followed by the preposition ma’ (with).

The meaning: that our Lord should place us with the good people and include us among them.

The words and the deeds which God has attributed to them prove what He has said about them that they are nearest in friendship to the believers, and ascertain that they possess beneficial knowledge and good deed and they surrender to the truth because there are among them priests and monks and they do not behave proudly.

فَأَثَابَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِمَا قَالُوا جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْمُحْسِنِينَ ٨٥ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُولَٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَحِيمِ ٨٦

(5:85–86) Therefore Allah rewarded them on account of what they said, with gardens in which rivers flow to abide in them; and this is the reward of those who do good. And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our signs, these are the companions of the flame.

The first verse here describes, their reward, and the second one recompense of those who oppose them. Thus, all groups are dealt with.

Examining Narrations

1. (al-Ṣadūq) narrates through his chain from al-Riḍā from his forefathers from ʿAlī that the clause: they both used to eat food, means: “They both evacuated the bowels.” (Maʾāni al-akhbār)

Author’s comment: al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated it in his al-Tafsīr.

2. (al-Kulaynī) narrates through his chain from Abū ʿUbaydah al-Ḥadhdhā’ from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said about the word of God: Those who disbelieved from among the Children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus, “Swines are (those who were cursed) by the tongue of David, and monkeys by the tongue of Jesus son of Mary.” (al-Kāfī)

Author’s comment: Also, al-Qummī and al-ʿAyyāshī have narrated it from the same Imam. The Sunnī traditions from Mujāhid and Qatādah, etc. narrate that monkeys were cursed by the tongue of David and swines by the tongue of Jesus son of Mary; and some Shī’ah traditions agree with it, as will be seen later.

3. Abū Jaʾfar said: “As for David, he cursed the people of Eilat, when they transgressed on their Sabbath day, and their transgression had occurred in his days. So he said, ‘O God! Dress them with curse like robe and like belt on waist’. So God transformed them into monkeys. And as for Jesus, he cursed those to whom the food was sent down and then they disbelieved.” Then Abū Jaʾfar, said, “They befriended tyrant kings and made their (that is, kings’) desires fair seeming to them in order to get (a share) from their world.” (Majmaʾ al-bayān)

Author’s comment: The Qur’an supports this report that the people of the Sabbath were transformed into monkeys. God says: And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: “Be apes, despised and hated” (). And ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath, appearing on the surface of the water, and on the day on which they did not keep the Sabbath they did not come to them; And when a party of them said: “Why do you admonish a people whom God would destroy or whom He would chastise with a severe chastisement?” They said: “To be free from blame before your Lord, and that haply they may guard (against evil)” Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: “Be apes, despised and hated” (7:163–6).

4. ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, Abu al-Shaykh, al-Ṭabarānī, and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Ibn Mas’ūd that he said, “The Messenger of God, said, ‘Verily whenever the Children of Israel committed a sin, their scholars forbade them (to do it) in rebuke, and then they sat with them and ate and drank with them as if they had not committed any sin yesterday. So when God saw this conduct of theirs, He let discord to appear among them, and cursed them by the tongue of a prophet.’ Then the Messenger of God said, ‘By God! You will most certainly enjoin the right and forbid the wrong; and you most certainly bend them to turn to truth; otherwise, God will most certainly let discord appear among you, and will most certainly curse you as He had cursed them.’” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
5. ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd has narrated from Ma’ādh b. Jabal that he said, “The Messenger of God, said, ‘Accept gift as long as it is gift; and if it is a bribe to divert you from your religion, then do not take it. But you shall never leave it—need and fear shall not let you avoid it. Surely the children of Gog have arrived. And certainly the handmill of Islam will soon start going round, so wherever the Qur’an revolves, you should revolve with it. It is about to happen that the worldly power and the Qur’an shall fight each other and separate. Surely soon you will get kings who will judge you according to one standard and judge themselves with another standard; if you would obey them they would lead you astray, and if you would disobey them they would kill you.’

“They (companions) said, ‘How should we (behave) if we found that (era)?’ He said, ‘You should be like the companions of Jesus. They were sawed with handsaws and hoisted on wood (that is, crucified). Death in obedience (of God) is better than life in disobedience. Surely the first defect that appeared in the Children of Israel was that they used to enjoin the good and forbid the evil, rebuking (the evil-doer), and then when one of them met the fellow whom he used to rebuke, he ate and drank with him as though he had not rebuked him for anything. So God cursed them by the tongue of David, and it was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. (I swear) by Him in Whose hand my soul is! You should certainly enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil; otherwise God will most certainly impose your evil ones as rulers over you, then your good ones will call (on God) and their call will not be answered. (I swear) by Him in Whose hand my soul is! You should most certainly enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and you will most certainly take the hand of the unjust and twist it over him; otherwise God will cause discord to appear among you.’” (ibid.)

6. Ibn Rāhwayh, al-Bukhārī (in al-Waḥdāniyyāt), Ibn al-Sakan, Ibn Mandah, al-Bāwardī (in Ma’rifat al-ṣaḥābah), al-Ṭabarānī, Abū Nu’aym, and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Ibn Abzī, from his father that he said, “The Messenger of God, delivered a sermon; he offered thanks to God and praised Him; then he mentioned some groups of the Muslims and lauded them in good terms; thereafter he said, ‘What has happened to some people that they do not teach their neighbors and do not impart to them the knowledge of religion? Why they do not enjoin them (to do good) and do not forbid them (the evil)? And why is it that some people do not learn from their neighbors, and do not acquire religious knowledge and do not become knowledgeable? (I swear) by Him in Whose hand my soul is! They should most certainly teach their neighbors, or they should most certainly acquire religious knowledge, or they should most certainly become knowledgeable; otherwise I shall most certainly hasten to their chastisement in this world.’

“Thereafter he came down and entered his house. The companions of the Messenger of God said, ‘Whom does he mean by this talk?’ They said, ‘We do not know whom does he mean by this talk except the tribe of Ash’arites. (They are) religious scholars, knowledgeable and they have neighbors, uncouth, ignorant.’

“Then a group of Ash’arites came together and visited the Prophet. They said, ‘You mentioned some groups of Muslims in good (terms) and mentioned us in bad (terms); so what should we do?’ The Messenger of God said, ‘You should most certainly teach your neighbors, and most certainly give them religious knowledge, and most certainly enjoin them and forbid them; otherwise I shall most certainly hasten to your chastisement in this world.’ They said, ‘O Messenger of God! Give us one year’s time; as in that one year we shall teach them and they shall learn.’ So he gave them time of one year. Then the Messenger of God recited: Those who disbelieved from among the Children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. (ibid.)

7. Muḥammad b. al-Haytham al-Tamīmī narrates from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said about the word of God, They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did: “Well, they did not enter their places nor did they sit in their sessions; but when they met them, they showed gladness on seeing them and showed friendliness towards them.” (al-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
8. Marwān narrates through some of his companions, from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he described the Christians and their enmity (towards Muslims); then he mentioned the word of God: that is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly, (and) said, “Those were the people who were between Jesus and Muḥammad, (who) were awaiting coming of Muḥammad.” (ibid.)

Author’s comment: Apparently the verse is general and not restricted to a certain period. Probably, the tradition means that the praise is applied to them only as long as they did not change, exactly as the praise of the Muslims too is conditional to their not changing.

9. ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Saʾīd b. Jubayr that he said explaining the word of God: that is because there are priests and monks among them … “It refers to the messengers of Negus whom he sent with (news of) his Islam and that of his people; they were seventy persons whom he selected from among his nation, good ones. So good is in religious knowledge and age.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
10. Another version says: He sent to the Messenger of God thirty men from among his good companions. They came to him, and he recited before them the chapter of Yā-Sīn; so they wept when they heard the Qur’an and recognized that it was truth. Therefore, God revealed about them: that is because there are priests and monks among them … Also it was revealed about them: (As to) those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it. And when it is recited to them they say: “We believe in it; surely it is the truth from our Lord; surely we were submitters before it.” These shall be granted their reward twice … (). (ibid.)
11. Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said, “The Messenger of God, while in Mecca, was afraid of polytheists regarding his companions. So he sent Jaʾfar b. Abī Ṭālib, Ibn Mas’ūd and ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn with a party of his companions to Negus, the king of Ethiopia. When the news reached the polytheists, they sent ʿAmr b. al-’Āṣ with a group of theirs. It is said that they arrived at Negus’ (court) before the companions of the Prophet, and said, ‘Indeed, has appeared among us a man who has declared as foolish the wisdom and aspirations of Quraysh; he thinks he is a prophet. He has sent a party to you in order to sabotage your nation against you; therefore, we liked to come to you and give you his report.’

“(Negus) said, ‘If they came to me, I’ll look into what they say.’ When the companions of the Messenger of God arrived (there), they came to the gate of Negus and said (to the door-keeper), ‘Take permission for the friends of God.’ (Negus) said, ‘Give permission to them; welcome to the friends of God.’ When they came to him, they greeted him with peace. The group of the polytheists said, ‘Do you not see, O King! That we have told you the truth, and they have not greeted you with the formula you are (usually) addressed with.’ (The King) said to them (the Muslims): ‘What has prevented you from greeting me with my (usual) greeting?’ They said, ‘We have greeted you with the greeting of the people of Garden, and the greeting of the angels.’

“Then he said to them, ‘What does your companion say about Jesus and his mother?’ They said, ‘He says, “A servant of God and His Messenger; a word from God and a spirit from Him which He sent to Mary”; and he says about Mary that she was a virgin, pure and untouched.’ The King took up a (small) piece of wood from the earth and said, ‘Jesus and his mother were not more than what your companion says even to the extent of this wood.’ The polytheist did not like his words and their faces underwent a change.

12. “Then (Negus) said, ‘Would you recite something from what has been revealed to you?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then recite (it).’ They began to recite. And there were around the King, priests, monks, and all other Christians. A group of the priests and monks (was so overwhelmed that) whenever they recited a verse, their (the Christians’) eyes overflowed with tears because of what they recognized of the truth. God says: this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize.” (ibid.)

Author’s comment: al-Qummī has narrated in his al-Tafsīr this event in a lengthy tradition, and it says at the end: (The envoys sent by Negus) returned to him and gave him the information about the Messenger of God, and recited to him what the Prophet had recited to them. So, Negus wept and the priests wept, then he became Muslim but did not disclose his Islam to the Ethiopians, because he was afraid of them regarding his life. So he came out of Ethiopia proceeding to the Prophet; when he crossed the sea, he expired.

Discourse

The discussion “Meaning of Tawḥīd in the Qur’an” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

Narrations (On Tawḥīd)

1. (al-Ṣadūq) narrates through his chain of narrators, from al-Miqdām b. Shurayḥ b. Hānī, from his father that he said, “Verily a Bedouin stood up on the day of the Camel to the Leader of the Faithful and said, ‘O Leader of the Faithful! Do you say that God is one?’” (The narrator) said that the people bore down on him and said, “O Bedouin! Do you not see how disturbed the Leader of the Faithful is at present?” The Leader of the Faithful said, “Leave him, because what this Bedouin wants is exactly what we want from these people (our adversaries).”

Then he said, “O Bedouin! The statement that, God is One is of four kinds (that is, it can be interpreted in four ways): Two sides (meanings) of them are not applicable to God, the Mighty, the Great, and two sides are affirmed about Him. As for the two meaning which are not allowed to attach to Him: (One:) It is the word of a speaker, ‘one’, when he intends it as a number; so this is not allowed (in respect of God), because that which has no ‘second’ does not enter into the fold of numbers (that is, cannot be counted). Don’t you see that He has declared them disbelievers who said that He was the third of the three? (Two:) It is the word of a speaker (for someone) that he is one of the people; he means a species from genes; so it is not allowed because it likens Him (to others), and our Lord is far greater and more sublime than it.

“And as for the two meanings which are affirmed about Him: (One:) It is the word of a speaker: He is One, there is nothing like unto Him; such is our Lord. (Two:) It is the word of a speaker: He is of one meaning, that is, He cannot be divided in existence, or in reason, or in imagination. Such is our Lord, the Mighty, the Great.” (al-Tawḥīd; al-Khiṣāl)

Author’s comment: He has also narrated it in Maʾāni al-akhbār, through another chain, from Abu al-Miqdām b. Shurayḥ b. Hānī, from his father from the Imam.

2. (ʿAlī said:) “The foremost in religion is the knowledge of Him, the perfection of knowing Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to adhere to Him purely, and the perfection of adhering to Him purely is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute testifies that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed testifies that it is different from the attribute.

“Thus whoever attaches attributes to God joins Him (to another thing) and who joins Him (to another thing) regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognizes parts for Him; and who recognizes parts for Him is ignorant of Him; and who is ignorant of Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.”

Author’s comment: It is a most amazing expression. The gist of the first paragraph is that cognition of God in its perfection ultimately leads to denying Him attributes. And the gist of the second paragraph (beginning with, “Thus whoever attaches attributes to God …”) is that affirmation of attributes entails affirmation of numerical unity that in its turn depends on putting limitations on Him, which is not allowed for God. The two premises lead to the conclusion that perfection of God’s cognition entails denying numerical unity/oneness for Him, and seeking some other meaning for divine unity. And that is the theme of the Imam in this sermon.

As for the question of denying Him attributes, the Imam has explained it in his word: The foremost in religion is the knowledge of Him. Apparently, one, who does not know God in any way, is yet to enter into the fold of religion. That knowledge is sometimes accompanied by deeds and at other times is devoid of deeds. Obviously, if one had a knowledge, which was somewhat, related to deed and action that knowledge would settle in the psyche only when it was acted upon. Otherwise, the knowledge would go on losing its power if contrary actions were performed, until it would become futile, null and void. The Imam has explained the same principle somewhere else in the same book: Knowledge is joined with action, he who knows acts; knowledge calls action loudly, if it answers the call, (well and good); otherwise knowledge too departs.

The knowledge and cognition becomes complete when the knower holds truly to “the known”, and manifests it in his interior and exterior, in his heart and limbs, by submitting to it in spirit and flesh. And it is the faith, which spreads to his inner and outer self. This reality is expressed in a nutshell in the sentence: the perfection of knowing Him is to testify Him.

Although this submission, which is called testifying Him, may take place with ascribing a partner to the Lord, as we see idol-worshipers submitting to God together with their other gods, yet obviously submission to a thing cannot be complete without turning away from other things. Thus submission to one of the gods means to turn away from other gods and in a way behaving arrogantly towards them. By the same standard, testifying to God and submission to Him cannot be complete without turning away from submission to the partners ascribed to Him and from the call to multitude of gods. This takes us to the sentence: the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness.

Now, the belief in unity of God has different grades one over another; and it is not perfected until the One God is given His due right of exclusive divinity. It is not enough just to call Him One God, but every factor having any part in existence and perfection must be attributed to Him, e.g., creation, giving sustenance, raising to life, causing to die, and bestowal and withholding. Submission and worship must be reserved to Him, without showing humility to other than Him in any way; one should not hope except for His mercy, should not fear except His wrath, should not covet except what is with Him, and should not adhere except to His door. In other words, one must devote oneself solely to Him in knowledge and practice. This factor is described by ʿAlī in these words: the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to adhere to Him purely.

When man settles on throne of sincerity, and divine solicitude attaches him to the near friends of God, then appear before his insight the signs manifesting his inability to properly acquire His cognition or to ascribe to Him the attributes worthy of His Greatness and Majesty. He sees that whatever attributes he uses for God are merely the ideas, which he has perceived by looking at, created things and the happening that he has observed in transient creatures. These are limited and restricted forms, each repelling the others; they cannot be mixed and mingled. Look for example at the meanings of existence, knowledge, power, life, sustenance, might, and affluence.

The limited meanings repel each other because clearly each meaning is devoid of the other meaning; for example, meaning of knowledge is devoid of that of power. When we imagine knowledge our attention is diverted from power, and we do not see the meaning of power in that of knowledge; and when we imagine the meaning of knowledge (which is one of the attributes) we are diverted from the meaning of His person, to Whom these attributes are attached.

Thus, these meanings, perceptions, and knowledge fall short of the ability to be applied properly to God, or to express exactly His splendor. A sincere servant, who intends to describe his Lord, inevitably feels the need to confess his shortcomings, which are not redeemable, his weakness that cannot be restored. Then he looks again to himself and negates what he had affirmed; and wanders in bewilderment from which he can’t come out. This is the connotation of the words of ʿAlī: “and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute testifies that it is different from that to which it is attributed, and everything to which it is attributed testifies that it is different from the attribute.”

This explanation given by us of the first paragraph is supported by the beginning of the sermon where the Imam says: “… Whom the height of intellect cannot appreciate, and the diving of understanding cannot reach; He for Whose description no limit is laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed”, as is clear to an intelligent contemplator.

The next paragraph: “Thus whoever attaches attributes to God joins Him (to another thing) …” This section analyses the implication of attaching attributes to God and in this way arrives at the aim that God is not subject to limitation or counting; while the first paragraph had reached through analysis of cognition to the denial of attributes.

“Thus whoever attaches attributes to God joins Him (to another thing)” because attribute and that to which it is attributed are two separate things; and whoever attaches them together, joins them; and whoever joins them recognizes them as two; and whoever recognizes God and His attributes as two, recognizes parts for Him, and whoever recognizes parts for Him is ignorant of Him, because in his imagination he points to Him; and whoever points to Him admits limitations for Him—because pointing shows that the one who is pointed at is separate from the one who points; and it creates a distance between the two, as the pointing begins from one and ends at the other; and whoever puts limitation on Him, numbers Him. In other words, he believes in Him as a numerical one, because counting is concomitant with division and isolation: Far be it from His glory.

3. ʿAlī says in another sermon:

“Praise be to God for whom one condition does not precede another so that He may be the First before being the Last or He may be Manifest before being the Hidden. Everyone called one (alone) except Him is by virtue of being small (in number); and everyone enjoying honor other than Him is humble. Every powerful person other than Him is weak. Every master (owner) other than Him is slave (owned). Every knower other than Him is seeker of knowledge. Every powerful other than Him is sometimes imbued with power and sometimes with disability. Every listener other than Him is deaf to faint voices while loud voices make him deaf and distant voices also get away from him. Every onlooker other than Him is blind to hidden colors and delicate bodies. Every manifest thing other than Him is hidden, but every hidden thing other than Him is incapable of becoming manifest.”

Author’s comment: It is based on the principle that God is not limited and all other things are limited. When these and similar attributes and ideas are subjected to limitation, they have some relationship with other things; and limitation causes them to be isolated from those other things, and be turned into opposite meaning.

Manifestation, when it is taken as limited, will be limited to a certain thing or a certain direction, and not to another thing or direction. Rather this manifest thing will turn into a hidden one when looked at in relation to that another thing or direction. When honor is subjected to limitation, will become null and void beyond that limit—will become humility. Power, when confined to a limit, will turn into disability beyond that limit. Manifestation is concealment beyond its location, and concealment is manifestation outside its context.

When ownership is restricted then the one who restricts shall be guardian and supervisor over this owner—in this way, both the owner and the thing he owns will be under ownership of someone else. Knowledge, when it is limited, does not belong to the knower, because a thing does not restrict itself—it has come to him by bestowal of someone else and his teaching. And so on.

The proof that the Imam has based his talk on the meaning of limit, may be seen in the sentences: “Every listener other than Him is deaf to faint voices” (to the end of the paragraph,) as all of it shows that all the created things are subject to limitation; and all is in the same context.

The sentence: “Everyone called one (alone) except Him is by virtue of being small (in number),” is the reason why we have quoted the whole paragraph. Manifestly it is based on the meaning of limit. The numerical oneness branches out from the limitedness of what is called one; and it entails division and multiplication. The more this division increases, the smaller and weaker that ‘one’ becomes—in comparison to the resulting multitude. Obviously, every numerical ‘one’ is small in comparison to the resulting multitude—even if in imagination only.

As for the ‘one’ which has no limit nor end, we cannot imagine any numerousness in it, because it does not accept any limit or distinction, and its being encompasses all its essence. As nothing of its essence is left out, there is nothing to add to it or to subtract from it—so it cannot increase nor decrease; what we imagine as that one’s second, is exactly the same ‘one.’

4. ʿAlī has also said: “All praise be to God Who gives proof of His existence through His creation, of His being eternal through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities proves that nothing is similar to Him. Senses cannot touch Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter, the limited, the Sustainer, and the sustained.

“He is One but not by being the first in counting; is Creator but not through movement or labour; is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ; is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids; is Witness but not by nearness; is Distant but not by measurement of distance; is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not through a rarefied (body).

“He is Distinct from things because of their subjugation to Him and their turning to Him.

“He who describes Him puts limits on Him, he who puts limits on Him counts Him, and he who counts Him rejects His eternity.”

Author’s comment: The beginning of this sermon indicates that all attributes and ideas found in transient creation, are limited affairs; they cannot take place until and unless there is a Limiter to fix their limits, a Maker to make them and a Sustainer to sustain them, and that Limiter, Maker and Sustainer is God. Obviously, limit is of His making, and as such it has come into being when He has made it; so it cannot cover its Maker. Far sublime is His Glory from these limits.

As such, whatever attributes are ascribed to Him are not subject to any limit—although our words are incapable of describing this idea properly. God, therefore, is One but not in the sense of number, because number and count leads to limitation. In the same way should be interpreted the further descriptions of His creation, His hearing, His seeing, His presence and so on.

It sprouts from it that His being distant from His creation does not mean separation and isolation. Far High is He from attachment and separation, incarnation and isolation. Rather it means that He subdues the creation and controls it, while the creatures are subjugated to Him and return to Him.

The clauses: “He who describes Him puts limits on Him, and he who puts limits on Him counts Him, and he who counts Him rejects His eternity”, prove that affirmation of numerical unity entails rejection of His eternity. Eternity in its essence means that God is not finite in His person and attributes, nor is He limited in any way. When we think of Him with regard to His being unprecedented by any former thing, it is His eternity without beginning; and when we regard Him as being not followed by any later thing, it is His eternity without end; and when one is regarded eternal on both sides, it is perpetuity.

Some scholars think that God’s eternity without beginning means that He precedes the created things, which He has created, and there had passed untold time before it when there was no news of any creation or its trace. (In other words, His precedence is seen within the framework of time.) But it is a most repulsive mistake. What is time? It is but the amount of the movement of moving things. How can such a thing join God in His eternity?

5. ʿAlī again says: “All praise be to God, Creator of the people, Who has spread the earth, has made streams to flow and vegetation to grow on high lands. His primality has no beginning, nor has His eternity any end. He is the First and from ever, and the everlasting without limit. Foreheads bow before Him and lips declare His Oneness. He determined the limits of things at the time of His creating them, keeping Himself away from any likeness.

“Imagination cannot surmise Him with limits and movements, limbs or senses. It cannot be said about Him: When? and no time duration can be attributed to Him by saying: till. He is Manifest, but it cannot be said: from what. He is Hidden but it cannot be said: in what. He is not a body that can die, nor is He veiled so as to be enclosed within. He is not near to things by way of touch, nor is He remote from them by way of separation.

“The gazing of people’s eyes is not hidden from Him, nor the repetition of words, nor the glimpse of hillocks, nor the tread of a footstep in the dark night or in the deep gloom, where the shining moon casts its light and the effulgent sun comes in its wake, through its setting and appearing again and again with the rotation of time and periods, by the approach of the advancing night or the passing away of the running day.

“He precedes every extremity and limit, and every counting and number. He is far above what those whose regard is limited attribute to

Him, such as the qualities of measure, having extremities, living in houses, and dwelling in abodes, because limits are meant for creation and are attributable only to other than God.

“He did not create things from eternal matter, nor after ever existing examples. But He created whatever He created and then He fixed limits thereto, and He shaped whatever He shaped and gave the best shape thereto.”

6. Again he says:

“He who assigns to Him (different) conditions does not believe in His oneness, nor does he who likens Him (to something) grasp His reality, He who illustrates Him does not signify Him. He who points at Him and imagines Him does not mean Him. Everything that is known through itself has been created, and everything that exists by virtue of other things is the effect (of a cause). He works, but not with the help of instruments. He fixes measures, but not with the activity of thinking. He is rich, but not by acquisition.

“Times do not keep company with Him, and implements do not help Him. His being precedes times. His existence precedes non-existence, and His eternity precedes beginning. By His creating the sense it is known that He has no senses. By His creating contrariness in various matters it is known that He has no contrary; and by His creating similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light the contrary of darkness, brightness that of gloom, dryness that of moisture, and heat that of cold. He produces affection among inimical things, fuses together diverse things, brings near remote things, and separates things, which are joined together.

“He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers. Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves. The word, ‘since’, disproves their eternity; the word, qad (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever; and the word lawlā (if it were not) keeps them remote from perfection.

“Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence; and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes. Stillness and motion do not occur in Him: How can that thing occur in Him, which He Himself has made to occur? And how can a thing revert to Him, which He first created? And how can a thing appear in Him, which He first brought to appearance? Had it not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal. If there was a front to Him, there would have been a rear also for Him, and He would have needed completion when shortage befell Him. In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him.”

Author’s comment: The first parts aim at showing that God cannot admit limitation. We have briefly explained it earlier.

“He is not confined by limits, nor counted by numbers”: It gives the sum total of the preceding paragraphs.

“Material parts can surround things of their own kind, and organs can point out things similar to themselves”: It further elaborates immediately preceding result. The preceding clauses showed that the limits encompassing the created things are the handiwork of the Creator, and have occurred after Him as an action occurs after its doer. Obviously, such a thing cannot encompass the doer. But these clauses under discussion look at the same aspect from another angle. Quantification and limitation, which are affected by these organs and material parts, take place within the framework of the given species. For example, gram is a unit of weight, and it is used in weighing loads, not colors or sounds; time which is amount of motion is used for gauging movements; a man’s social prestige and weight is measured by comparing him to that of another. In short, each of these limits gives its object a frame of its own kind. Now, every transient attribute, whatever it may be, is based on a measure and limit, and adheres to a term and end; this being the case, how can its limited meaning be applied to God Who is eternal, without beginning and without end, remaining for ever?

This is what the Imam means, and that is why it is followed by the clauses: “The word, ‘since’, disproves their eternity; the word, qad (that denotes nearness of time of occurrence), disproves their being from ever; and the word, lawlā (if it were not) keeps them remote from perfection.” The words, since and qad, both indicate new occurrence in time; obviously their objects cannot be described as being eternal or without beginning. Likewise, the word, lawlā, points to shortcoming and defect, which has kept it far from perfection.

“Through them the Creator manifests Himself to the intelligence; and through them He is guarded from the sight of the eyes”: ‘Through them’ that is, through these things. Meaning: The things are the signs of God, the Creator; and signs show only that whose signs they are. They are like mirrors that show only His power and knowledge; through them He has shown Himself to intelligence; and also through them He prevents the eyes to see Him. The only way to see Him is through these signs—and these are limited and can cover only those things, which are limited like them. How can they encompass the Lord who encompasses everything?

For the same reason, eyes cannot see Him. Eyes are delicately made organs, which have their own limitations and can comprehend only those things, which are similarly limited. And far be it from the Glory of the Lord to be subject of limitation!

“Stillness and motion do not occur in Him …”: It reiterates the forgoing theme in a different way. These actions and occurrences, which are ultimately a combination of stillness and motion, are not applicable to Him; they do not return to Him, nor do they occur in Him. They are merely the effects of His influence on a thing. And man cannot influence himself, except through a sort of analysis that would divide his person somehow, like a man hitting his hand on his head, or a physician treating himself through his medicine, etc. This looks okay because of variation of aspects or imaginary separation of limbs. Otherwise it would have been impossible. For example, eye does not see itself, and fire does not burn itself; similarly no active agent shows its action except in other than itself, (save where compounding or analysis is entailed). This is the connotation of the Imam’s words: “Had it not been so, His Self would have become subject to diversity, His Being would have become divisible (into parts), and His reality would have been prevented from being deemed Eternal.”

“In that case signs of the created would appear in Him, and He would become a sign (leading to other objects) instead of signs leading to Him”: If He were subject to limits and dimension, He would be afflicted with shortage and defect, in need of something to remove that shortfall. But defect and shortage are signs of ‘made’ objects, and are proofs of transience; and in that case He would carry in Himself signs of being created; Glorified and High be He from such aspects! Such an idea would place Him side by side with other made things, which through their defects, limitations and transience, point to an Eternal Being Who is free from all defects and limitations—and He is God, Whom hands of limitation and dimension cannot reach.

The Imam has shown here that only a transient and made thing leads to its Eternal Maker. In other contexts, the same Imam as well as all other Imams of Ahl al-Bayt have asserted that God is known by Himself while other things are known through Him; that He is the Guide to His Own Self as well as to His created things. Apparently, these two stands seem contrary to each other. But it is not so, because this knowledge is different from that, and this guidance is dissimilar to that. I hope that God will help me to explain it fully in a related discourse in some later study—God Willing!

7. (al-Ṣadūq) narrates through his chain from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said, “While the Leader of the Faithful was delivering a sermon on the pulpit of Kūfah, a man named Dhi’lib stood up—and he had a fluent tongue, eloquent speech and a brave heart—and said, ‘O Leader of the Faithful! Have you seen your Lord?’ He said, ‘Woe unto thee, O Dhi’lib! I am not the one to worship Whom I have not seen.’ (Dhi’lib) said, ‘O Leader of the Faithful! How did you see Him?’ He said, ‘O Dhi’lib! Eyes have not seen Him through the eyesight; but hearts perceive Him through the realities of belief. Woe unto thee, O Dhi’lib! Verily my Lord is the most kind, and He is not described in terms of kindness; the most exalted, but is not described in terms of exaltedness; the greatest, but not described in terms of greatness; the most grand, but not described in terms of thickness. He is before every thing, it is not said that anything is before Him; He is after everything, it is not said that for Him there is an after. He wished (creation of) thing but not through endeavour; He is successful, not through treachery. He is in the things, but not intermingled with them, or separate from them. He is Manifest but not in physical sense, is Evident but not through sighting with eyes. He is separate but not because of distance, is near but not by proximity. He is delicate, but not through embodiment, existing, not after non-existence. He is the Doer, but not under compulsion, the Ordainer, but not with movement, the Preceptor, not with any worry; He is the Hearer, not with an organ, the Seer, not with a body part. Places do not encompass Him, and times do not accompany Him and attributes do not limit Him. His Being preceded times, and His existence (preceded) non-existence, and His eternity (preceded) the beginning. By His creating the senses it was known that He has no senses, and by His making the substances it was recognized that He has no substance; and by His creating the contraries in various matters it is known that He has no contrary, and by the similarity between things it is known that there is nothing similar to Him. He has made light contrary of darkness, dryness that of moisture, and cold that of heat. He produces affinity between inimical things (and) separates things, which are joined together. (These things) by their separation lead to their separator, and by their joining point to their joiner; and this is the word of God, the Mighty, the Great: And of every thing We have created pairs that you may be mindful (). In this way He separated them between before and after, in order that it may be known that for Him there is no before or after; they prove through their natures that their Creator has no nature; their being bound by time makes it known that He Who thus binds them is not bound by time. He veils some of them from others, that it may be understood that there is no veil between Him and His creation—except the creation itself. He was the Sustainer when there was no sustained, the God when there was no worshipper, the Knower when there was no known, and the Hearer when there was nothing to be heard. Then he recited saying:

“ ‘And my Master was always well known by praise,

And my Master was always described for magnanimity; And He was when there was no light to illuminate,

Nor was darkness keeping to horizons; So our Master is unlike the whole creation,

And unlike all that could be imagined by minds.’”

Author’s comment: As you see, the speech of the Imam explains the theme of the uniqueness of God’s person in all its manifestations; and that His Person is neither finite nor limited. No self stands opposite His Self, otherwise it would have threatened Him through limitation and subdued Him through determination. He encompasses everything, and controls every affair. No attribute is ascribed to Him, which is separate from His person; otherwise it would negate His eternity and go against His limitlessness.

His attribute of perfection is not bound with any limit, which would push away other thing or be pushed away by it. For example, our knowledge is other than our power because both are separate from each other in meaning as well as in external existence; but so far as God’s person is concerned, the two attributes are not separate from one another; this attribute is exactly that, and is not distinguishable from His many other attributes; His one name denotes all His beautiful names.

Going one step further, we find another meaning—finer and deeper than above: These meanings and ideas are like weights and measures for intelligence. The intelligence uses them to weigh and measure external existence, the actual being. As such these meanings and ideas are subject to limits, and boundaries. They cannot be devoid of this aspect, even if we join them together and even if they were to support one another; they cannot weigh or measure except the things, which are subject to limits and boundaries like them. Now, if we suppose something unlimited, and then try to gauge it with these limited weights and measures, we cannot get except a limited thing and it will not be the One Who is above limits and boundaries; and the more we try to get Him in this way, the higher and remoter He will go.

Let us look at the meaning of knowledge: It is a meaning we have taken from an attribute which is limited in existence and which we deem as perfection for the knower. This theme is bounded in such a way that it cannot accommodate power and life, for example. Sometimes we may use this word for God and try to overcome its limitedness by adding to it some phrases, e.g. “knowledge unlike other knowledge”; now it would release it from some limitations, yet it cannot go beyond its basic meaning and will not cover other attributes of perfection. (Every meaning has a limit that it cannot go beyond.) Just adding one theme to another does not lead to negation of the particular theme, as it is clear.

This leaves man bewildered when he tries to describe God according to his own wisdom and understanding. It is this theme that is inferred from his clause, “and attributes do not limit Him”, and from another clause in the first sermon quoted earlier, “and the perfection of adhering to Him purely is to deny Him attributes”, and again in the same sermon (not quoted here): “He for Whose description no limit has been laid down, and no eulogy exists.” Here you see that he asserts attribute at the same time when he negates it or negates its limit; and it is understood that its assertion cannot be free from limit; thus negating its limit is tantamount to rejecting it after admitting it. It means that asserting for Him an attribute of perfection does not negate other attributes. In this way His attributes combine with one another and then become one with His Self and there is no limit; then it does not negate what is beyond these attribute (that which we do not understand that we may narrate, nor do we perceive that could be attached to Him). Understand it.

Had it not been that meanings fall down when they reach near His Majesty and Greatness (in the sense described above), it would have been possible for the reason to encompass Him with all the general and vague ideas which surround Him, like His description that He is a person not like persons, He has knowledge unlike knowledge, power not like others’ power, and life different from all types of life. This manner of description does not leave anything without counting and encompassing it in general. The question is: Is it possible for anything to encompass Him? Or is it that one cannot comprehend Him in detail, but there is no difficulty in encompassing Him in a general way? But God has said: … while they do not comprehend Him in knowledge (); … now surely He encompasses all things, (). So, nothing encompasses God from any direction in any manner of encompassing; and His Glorified Self does not accept any detail or generality, so that there could be one verdict for His detail and another for His generality. Understand it.

8. ʿAlī says in another sermon: “His proof is His signs, and His existence is His affirmation; and His cognition is His Oneness, and His Oneness is to distinguish Him from His creation; and the verdict of distinction is the separation of attribute, not separation of isolation. Verily He is the Sustainer (and) Creator, not sustained (or) created; anything imagined, He is opposite to it. (Thereafter he, a.s. said): He is not a god who is recognized by his self; He guides the proof to lead to Him, and leads the cognition to Himself.”

Author’s comment: Meditation on foregoing statement makes it clear that this sermon aims at showing that the divine unity is an oneness unrelated to number. See how clearly he says that His cognition is His oneness; in other words, affirmation of His existence is exactly the affirmation of His oneness. Had this oneness been of number, it would have been separate from His Self, and the Self, per se, would not have sufficed for oneness except through an external factor separate from affirmation of the Self.

It is an amazing logic and a most profound description of the divine unity; if we were to go into its proper explanation, it would require a deep and extensive discourse beyond the scope of this book. A finest point included therein is his clause: “His existence is His affirmation”; the Imam means that His proof is His actual existence, that is, mind does not grasp Him and reason does not encompass Him.

“Anything imagined, He is opposite to it”: The Imam does not mean that He is opposite of the imagined form, because everything found outside imagination shares this quality. The actual meaning is that God is opposite to what the mind imagines about Him, whatever it may be; as such an imagined form cannot encompass Him. However, you should not forget that He is much beyond even this imagination, that is, the imagination that He is opposite to every imagination.

“He is not a god who is recognized by his self”: God’s Majesty is so great that cognition cannot reach Him and He subdues all understanding and perception. Everyone whom we recognize by his own self, his self is other than ours and his cognition is likewise separate from ours, and that is how our cognition is attached to him. But God encompasses and supervises our cognition and us. There is no safety-hold to which our cognition or we might cling to avoid His all-encompassing power and to adhere to it in isolation.

The Imam has explained this stage in his words: “He guides the proof to lead to Him, and leads the cognition to Himself.” It means that God is the Guide Who leads the proof to guide to Him, and leads the cognition to have a sort of relation to Him; it is because He encompasses everything and has power and authority over everything. That being the case, how can anything find a way to His Self or encompass Him, while God encompasses it and controls its guidance to Himself?

9. (al-Ṣadūq) narrates from ʿUmar b. ʿAlī from ʿAlī that he said, “The Messenger of God has said, ‘The Unity (of God), its exterior is in its interior, and its interior is in its exterior; its exterior is attributed (which) is not seen and its interior is existant (which) is not hidden. He is sought in every place while no place is devoid of Him even for one moment; (He is) present, without any limit, absent (but) not lost.’” (Maʾāni al-akhbār)

Author’s comment: This speech too aims at describing God’s non- numerical oneness; it is based on the fact that God is not limited by any limit. This limitlessness shows that His unity’s exterior is not separate from its interior, and vice versa. It is because exterior and interior become separated and isolated from one another when there is a limit and boundary between them, but when that boundary is removed, both mingle together and become one.

Likewise, the attributed exterior is encompassed and the extant interior is hidden and veiled when they are fettered with a limit, and cannot trespass that boundary. Likewise, a thing present is limited and its presence is perceived by those who are near it, while the absent is unperceived and lost because of its limitedness. Otherwise, the present with all its being would not have gathered near those who are in its proximity, and the absent would not have been hidden from those who are far away. And it is clear.

Discourse

The discussion “A Historical Discourse” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

---

1. See al-Mīzān (Eng.), vol.1. (Trans.) ↩︎

2. al-Mīzān (Eng.) vol.6. (Trans.) ↩︎

3. Mark, ↩︎

4. Luke, ↩︎

5. Matt., 13:47–50; ↩︎

6. al-Ghālī (one who transgresses the limit, on the side of excess); its opposite is al-qãlī (one who does not reach the required goal). (Auth.) ↩︎

7. al-Mīzãn (Eng.), vol.6. (Trans.) ↩︎

8. The story of Negus’ journeying towards Mecca and dying on the way is not supported by history. (Trans.) ↩︎

9. Nahj al-balāghah; part of Sermon 1. (Trans.) ↩︎

10. Nahj al-balāghah, part of Sermon 64. (Trans.) ↩︎

11. Nahj al-balaghah, Sermon 152. Azal means eternity (without beginning), while abad denotes eternity (without end). Unfortunately, there are no words in English to express this difference in meaning, and one is constrained to use ‘eternity’ in both places. However, in the above sentence it denotes eternity without beginning. (Trans.) ↩︎

12. Nahj al-balāghah, part of Sermon 163. (Trans.) ↩︎

13. Nahj al-balāgha, part of Sermon 186. (Trans.) ↩︎

14. Its literal translation will be, “kind of the kindness”; the same is the case with the following three clauses. (Trans.) ↩︎

15. al-Ṣadūq, al-Tawḥīd; some pieces of this sermon are found also in Nahj al-balāghah, Sermons 179 and 186. (Trans.) ↩︎

16. al-Ṭabrisī, al-Iḥtijāj. (Auth.) ↩︎