Appearance
Verses 74–83
These are ten verses in which the Almighty God mentions the arguments that He had granted to the great Prophet Abraham against polytheists thereby guiding him towards His Unity and pure concept of Divinity. Then He mentions the guidance that He provided to His prophets by purifying their nature from polytheism; among them He has named Noah, who was before Abraham, and sixteen prophets from the descendants of Noah.
In reality, these verses are elucidation for a perfect example of living by the religion of nature (fitrah) and standing up for spreading the belief of monotheism and purifying the concept of divinity from polytheism and idolatry; that is the faith for which Abraham stood up and defended against idolatry when the whole world was seemingly engulfed by it and had forgotten the path of monotheism that Noah and the prophets from among his descendants had introduced to the human society. These verses—consisting of arguments and guidance towards the religion of nature (fitrah)—are like further reflection upon the arguments that passed earlier in this chapter that Almighty God has taught to His Prophet by His Word like “Say this” and “Say that.” The word “Say” has occurred in this noble chapter forty times, about twenty times before these verses. It seems as if it said: in what you say to your people and present to them the arguments of monotheism and rejection of polytheism that We have taught you, remember what Abraham said to his father and his people of what We had given to him of Our arguments against his people based on what We showed him of the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. Abraham used to argue against them on basis of Divine blessings of knowledge, wisdom and demonstration of His Kingdom based on conviction and not on fabricated idea founded on imagination and concoction that is rejected by the voice of the pure nature.
If we ponder on the tone of Abraham in what God, the Sublime has quoted of him in these verses with minds that are free of the details seen in the narrations and history with their obvious contradictions, and that are untainted by disputes put forth by the commentators of the Qur’an who have contaminated their exegeses with the narrations, historical tales, stores from the Old Testament and other materials that become popular from Israelites. In short, such a reflection will clearly show that Abraham’s tone in these verses was a speech emanating from a pure mind, void of the variety of ideas and imaginations, put in form of words by his pure nature which was in its initial stages of intellection and reflection and had subtlety of consciousness and feelings.
An unbiased observer who reflects on these verses will not doubt that Abraham’s statement with his people was closest to the speech of a primitive and simple human being who lived in an underground tunnel or a cave in the mountain; who did not associate with people except for obtaining the necessary food and clothing; who had not surveyed the sky with its stars and celestial bodies or the rising of the sun and the moon; who had not stayed in a highly populated society with its vast cities, divergence of ideas, differences of goals and objectives, and varieties of its religions and sects. Then by chance he happened to enter the organized societies and observed unusual issues unfamiliar to him such as the celestial bodies, vast land mass, groups of people busy in their jobs struggling to obtain their goals and objectives without being distracted by anyone whether moving or standing, worker or employer, servant or master, superior or subordinate, leader or follower, busy in work or devotedly worshiping God.
Whatever he saw bewildered him, whatever he observed over- whelmed him, and so he started asking his associates about everything that he saw, and whatever drew his attention that surprised him just like a child who observes the vastness of the sky with its shinning sun and moon, as well as the necklace of bright stars, and asks his mother: ‘What are these things that I see that fills me with delight and amazement? Who has decorated them in the sky? Who has illuminated them? Who has made them?’
We, of course, don’t doubt that the initial questions that this person asks about the reality of things that he observes and that surprise him are closer to his state of loneliness and isolation from the society; and that he is asking about the purposes and goals of these entities that cannot be answered through the senses only. A human being seeks answers regarding the unknown based on whatever initial information that he possesses; he does not discover the answer regarding the unknown but by means of the information that he already possesses. This is an obvious matter seen in simple-minded people such as children and Bedouins when they come face to face with things that they had not known or seen before, so they start inquiring about what they know briefly and asking about its reality, its origins and its goals. The person in consideration here is the person of pure nature who had engaged in only simple means of survival and therefore his mind was not occupied the way the mind of a city dwelling person would be occupied who is surrounded by a variety and countless natural activities which does not relieve him even for a moment. The thoughts and mind of the person in consideration are untainted, and now he is surrounded with the celestial and earthly incidents whose natural causes are unknown to him. His mind, therefore, is more receptive in reaching (directly) to the cause that is superior to the natural causes—a conclusion to which a city dwelling person reaches after completing the survey of the natural causes for the incidents, that also if he has the time! Consequently, it was faster for the mind of the person in consideration to reach to the supreme cause when he saw the city-dwellers busy in adhering and worshiping Him.
A proof for what we have mentioned above can be found in what we observe: adherence to religious rituals and discussion about metaphysics is more prevalent and more important in Asia than compared to Europe; and in villages and small towns it has more prestige than compared to bigger cities, and on same basis between the bigger cities and mega cities. This is so because the more the society expands, its basic needs increase and its activities multiply manifolds which leaves no opportunity for a person to easily get in touch with his spirituality and focus on the issue of the origin and the end.
In short, when we survey the story of Abraham mentioned in these verses and similar ones in verses of chapters Maryam, al-Anbiyāʾ, al-Ṣāffāt, etc. We find his situation in his arguments with his sire and his people to be similar to the situation of a simple person whom we find asking about the idols and disputing with the people about them, and talking about the stars, the moon and the sun—asking questions like one who was not familiar with what the people were doing, especially when it came to his own people who were worshiping idols. He says to his sire and his people: When he said to his father and his people: “What are these images to whose worship you cleave?” (); When he said to his father and his people: “What do you worship?” They said: “We worship idols, so we shall be their votaries.” He said: “Do they hear you when you call? Or do they profit you or cause you harm?” They said: “Nay, we found our fathers doing so.” ()
This is the statement of a person who had neither seen an idol nor observed an idolater worshiping an idol even though he was in the cradle of idolatry, Babylon of Chaldea, and lived among them for a time. So was Abraham’s expression, ‘What are these images?’ is a way of belittling the idols and an indication that he does not accord them the same place accorded to them by the people, and that he does not see any sacredness and virtue in them? It seems as if he does not know them the way Pharaoh talked to Moses when he said: “And what is the Lord of the worlds?” (); or the way the polytheists of Meccan talked to the Prophet as the Almighty God has quoted: And when those who disbelieve see you, they do not take you but for one to be scoffed at: “Is this he who speaks of your gods?” And they are deniers at the mention of the Beneficent God, ().
It seems far-fetched to think in that way since Abraham used nothing but the best of manners in his speech to his father Āzar. Even when his father shunned him and threatened him with stoning, Abraham said to him: “Peace be on you, I will pray to my Lord to forgive you; surely He is ever Affectionate to me.” ()
It is far-fetched to believe that in the first discussion that Abraham had with his father, he would belittle the lofty status of his gods in abusing and insulting tone, and thus provoke his prejudice and idolatrous tendencies. Moreover, God, the Glorified, had forbidden in this religion, the pure religion of Abraham, to abuse the gods of the polytheists, so that it does not provoke them to respond to the Muslims in kind. The Almighty says: And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allāḥ out of ignorance, ().
After having argued with his father, Āzar, and his people about the idols, Abraham focuses his attention on their lords: the star, the sun and the moon. When he saw the star, he said: “This is my Lord;” then he saw the moon rising, he said: “This is my Lord;” but then he saw the sun rising, he said: “This is my Lord, this is bigger.” These expressions also reflect the situation of a person who had neither seen the star nor the moon and the sun. His clearest form of argument is when he said about the sun: “This is my Lord, this is bigger.” This seems to be the statement of someone who did not know anything about the sun or the moon or the star other than the fact that he saw the people humbling themselves towards them, worshiping them and giving offerings for them as the history of the Babylonians shows.
It is just like a situation when you observe a blurred human shape and do not know whether it is a man or a woman, you would ask: “Who is this?” You will then be told: “This is so-and-so woman or so-and-so man.” And when you observe a blurred shape and you cannot discern whether it is a human or an animal or a tree, you would ask: “What is that?” You will then be told: “This is Zayd or this is so-and-so woman or it is shape of such-and-such item.” In these situations, you being ignorant of the reality will ask about the identity of the shape whether it is of an intelligent human or an animal or whether it is a male or a female based on what you can discern from the vague shape. But the person giving the answer, since he is aware of the reality, will respond according to the reality.
The appearance of Abraham’s statement that: “This my Lord” and “This is my Lord, this is bigger”, show that he did not know much about the sun other than the fact that it rises; and that it is bigger than the moon and the star; and that people refer to it for worship and rituals. Referring to this kind of (partial) knowledge by the expression “this—(hadhā in masculine form)” is no doubt appropriate. But the reality that the sun was the celestial body that manages the world by its light and facilitates the night and the light by its movement as discerned by our senses or that the moon or the star rise every night from the eastern horizon and set in the opposite horizon in the west—he did not know these realities as can be seen from his expressions. If he had known this, he would have said about sun: “This—(hādhihi in feminine form) is my Lord, this is bigger”, or he would have said: “Surely she is my Lord, she is bigger.” (Note: In Arabic language, ‘sun’ is a feminine noun; and so the appropriate indication to it should be hadhihi and not hadhā.) Abraham realized this fine point later on as can be seen in his argument with Nimrod when he said: “So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it (you) from the west,” (). Referring to the sun in “bring it”, he did not say bihi (being a masculine pronoun, rather he said bihā which is a feminine pronoun).
Similarly, when he (Abraham) said to his father and his people as quoted by God: “What do you worship?” They said: “We worship idols, so we shall be their votaries.” He said: “Do they hear you when you call? Or do they profit you or cause you harm?” They said: “Nay, we found our fathers doing so;” (). Abraham started by asking about their gods by using the term “mā—what” (which is used for inanimate things rather than “man—who”) since he had no knowledge about it other than the fact that it is an object. Then when they mentioned the idols (and they didn’t believe that they had consciousness and will), they said: “so we shall be their votaries—fa-naẓallu lahā” with the feminine hā. When he heard from them about the idols (being considered as gods), then it became compelling to describe them with the power to benefit, harm and hearing in response to those who call them, so now Abraham describes them with being with intelligence. But then in the story of smashing the idols, they said: “Certainly you know that they do not speak,” () in response to his question: “…therefore ask them, if they can speak.”—Abraham stripped them of the quality of intelligence and said: “What! Do you then serve besides Allah what brings you not any benefit at all, nor does it harm you? Fie on you and on what you serve besides Allah; what! Do you not then understand?” ()
We cannot arbitrarily ignore these fine points and say that when Abraham used the masculine form hadhā in “This my Lord, this is bigger,” he was referring to the celestial body (as a body and not necessarily to the sun) or to the aforementioned entity or that in his Syriac language, like most non-Arabic languages, feminine is not taken into consideration. This is just an arbitrary view. Moreover, when his talk with the king about the sun, he specifically said: “So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it (you) from the west,” (), (in which he uses the feminine pronoun hā). If the Qur’an did not use the style of his own language in this case, then why did he say, “This is my Lord, this is bigger” (using the masculine form)?
The same question will come when Abraham asked his people about the idols: “What are these images to whose worship you cleave?” (). And also in his prayer: “…save me and my sons from worshipping idols. My Lord! Surely they have led many men astray…” (). (In both these cases, feminine pronouns have been used.)
Neither is it acceptable to say that Abraham used masculine form in the demonstrative pronoun for the sun in order to safeguard God’s honour from the blemish of femininity or because the predicate has to follow the subject of the nominal clause which was masculine: “My Lord” (being the subject clause) and “bigger” (being the predicate). All this arbitrary interpretations have no proof to stand on. The details will follow later on.
In summary, these verses and other similar verses in which the Almighty God has described the arguments of Abraham to his father and his people on God’s unity and negating partners from Him are statements that contextually prove that he previously lived in an environment away from that of his father and his people and was not familiar with what the people knew as far as details of the celestial bodies and social norms prevalent among them are concerned. And that it was during his early age of maturity and discernment that he left his isolation and joined his father and found idols with him; so he inquired about their status and when he was informed about them, he argued against their divinity and put across a convincing proof. Then he argued with his people about the idols and silenced them.
Then he looked at their worshiping of a variety of idols from the stars, the moon and the sun, and he seemingly joined them in believing in them as gods, one after another: he monitored them continuously and whenever one of them would set, he would reject it and deny its divinity; then he would go to other body that they worshiped until that also would set in the day or the night as it is normal for the celestial bodies. Finally, he turned to the pure monotheism by saying: “Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists;” (). It seems that he completed his arguments in two days and a night in between as we shall discuss soon, God willing.
Abraham was aware that the universe has a creator who brought forth the heavens and the earth, and that is God alone who has no partner in this matter. He was discussing whether the people, including himself, had a lord other than God, from His creation such as the sun, the moon etc., who provide for them, manage their affairs and are partners of God in His decisions or that there is no lord for them but the Almighty God alone with no partner?
In all these stages of discussions that Abraham covered, the Almighty God helped him and supported him by showing him the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and disposed his noble soul to the direction in which all things were related to the Almighty God in their creation and management. So, whenever he would look at a thing, he would see its connection to God, and His creation and management of it before even he sees itself and its effects. This is clear from His Word: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and so that he might be of those who are sure; (), and later on in that passage: And this was Our argument which we gave to Abraham against his people; We exalt in dignity whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing; (). And certainly We gave to Abraham his rectitude before, and We knew him fully well (). Also, from Abraham’s conversation to his father: “O my father! Truly the knowledge has come to me which has not come to you, therefore follow me; I will guide you on a right path;” (). That can also be seen in his arguments against King Nimrod who claimed divinity as was common for many of the tyrants in the past, and from that sprouted the idea of duality; and that his people had many gods and idols that they worshiped, including the major ones such as the sun, the moon and the star (most probably the Venus) that the Noble Qur’an had mentioned.
This is the summary of what can be gleamed from the noble verses, and we shall discuss its contents in detail as much as we can, God willing.
وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لِأَبِيهِ آزَرَ أَتَتَّخِذُ أَصْنَامًا آلِهَةً ۖ إِنِّي أَرَاكَ وَقَوْمَكَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ ٧٤
(6:74) And (remember) when Abraham said to his sire, Azar: “Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error”;
In the (canonical) seven recitations of the Qur’an, the last letter of Azara—has the vowel point faṭḥa (denoting the sound a) and so it becomes explicative apposition or substantive apposition for abīhi (his sire). In some (non-canonical) recitation, the last letter of Azaru appears with the vowel point ḍumma (denoting the sound u), in which case it is indicative noun in the vocative form and would mean: “O Azar, do you take idols for gods.” Yet another recitation starts with interrogative ḥamza: a azraʾa followed by azraʾa in subjective form as verbal noun of azara, yaʾziru in the meaning of support, and the it would mean: “And (remember) when Abraham said to his sire: ‘Do you take the idols for gaining strength and support?’ “
Key Debate: Abraham's Father →
The commentators have differences of opinion on the first common as well as the second no canonical recitations on the word ‘Azar’: is it the proper name of Abraham’s father or is it a nickname used for praise in the meaning of the supporter or for blame in the meaning of the lame or the crocked, etc. The reason of these differences is the number of narrations in which his name has occurred as ‘Tāriḥ’ or ‘Tārikh’ which is supported by the historical records, and even the present Old Testament says that Abraham was ‘son of Tārikh.’
They also differ in their opinions about the meaning of the word ab: does it mean the father, or the uncle, or the maternal grandfather, or a person of rank and authority. The basis of these differences is also the difference in narrations: some of them indicate that he was his father and that Abraham will intercede on his behalf on the Day of Judgement but that his intercession will not be granted rather God will transform him into a smelly hyena and so Abraham will disassociate himself from him. Other narrations say that he was not his father rather his father was a monotheist, not an idol worshiper, as is also indicated in narrations that the ancestors of the Holy Prophet Muḥammad were all monotheists, not polytheists, etc.
Even in other dimensions of Abraham’s story, the commentators have differences to a strange degree to the extent that some examples, such as those seen in the Old Testament, strip him of his status of being God’s friend, prophethood and messengership. They have stretched out these kinds of discussions until it ends in far-fetched conclusions that are outside the norms of the exegesis of the Qur’an as described by the holy verses about the purpose of pondering on them. Whoever wants to know about this may refer to the extensive commentaries, especially those on the pattern of exegesis based on the traditions.
What the reflections on the verses pertaining to the story of Abraham indicate is that his first point of contact with his people was with a person mentioned in the Qur’an as his father Azar, and that he urged him to abandon the idols and to follow the religion of monotheism so that he can guide him until when his father forsaken him and asked him to leave him alone: And mention Abraham in the Book; surely he was a truthful (man), a prophet. When he said to his father: “O my father! Why do you worship what neither hears nor sees, nor does it avail you in the least. O my father! Truly the knowledge has come to me which has not come to you, therefore follow me; I will guide you on a right path…” He said: “Do you dislike my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist I will certainly revile you, and leave me for a time.” (). So, Abraham bade him farewell and promised to pray for his forgiveness, hoping to entice him to the faith, the true success and the guidance: He said: “Peace be on you, I will pray to my Lord to forgive you; surely He is ever Affectionate to me; and I will withdraw from you and what you call on besides Allah, and I will call upon my Lord; may be I shall not remain unblessed in calling upon my Lord.” (). The second verse is the best indication that Abraham promised to pray for his forgiveness in this world and not that he will intercede on his behalf on the Day of Judgement even if he remained a disbeliever or on the condition that he didn’t know about his disbelief.
Then the Almighty God narrated the fulfillment of Abraham’s promise and his prayer for forgiveness of his father: “My Lord: Grant me wisdom and join me with the good ones. And make for me a truthful tongue (goodly mention) among posterity; and make me of the heirs of the garden of bliss; and forgive my father, for surely he is of those who have gone astray. And disgrace me not on the day when they are raised, the day on which neither property will avail, nor sons, except him who comes to Allah with a submissive heart,” (). The words: for surely he is of those who have gone astray; clearly show that Abraham prayed for his father after his death or after separating from and abandoning him by the term ‘is’. The latter part of the verses indicate that Abraham’s prayer was done only in order to fulfill the promise that he had made as he himself says: ‘Forgive this misguided person on the day of resurrection,’ then he describes the day of resurrection as the day when nothing will be of use (neither wealth nor children) except the submissive heart.
The Almighty God has clarified this reality in His Word that are in form of justification: And Abraham asking forgiveness for his sire was only owing to a promise which he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of Allah, he declared himself to be clear of him; most surely Abraham was very tender-hearted, forbearing, (). The context of the verse shows that this prayer was done by Abraham in this world so was the act of disassociating from him, not that he will pray for him and disassociate from him on the Day of Judgement. The context of the verse is the context of a general prohibitive command from which Abraham’s prayer has been exempted by explaining that it was done in reality to fulfill his promise—there is no sense in exempting something that is going to take place in the future (for example on the Day of Judgment) from a legislative command given in this world and then talk about disassociation in the Hereafter.
In short, the Almighty describes the prayer of Abraham for his father and then his disassociation from him during the earlier stages of Abraham’s era when he migrated to the holy land based on his plea for wisdom, for being included among the good-doers and for good descendents as seen in the verses above: “My Lord: Grant me wisdom and join me with the good ones;” (). And also the verse which includes the act of disassociating from his father and his people: Indeed, there is for you a good example in Abraham and those with him when they said to their people: “Surely we disassociate from you and from what you worship other than Allah; we renounce you, and enmity and hatred have appeared between us and you for ever until you believe in Allah alone”—but not in what Abraham said to his father: “I would certainly ask forgiveness for you, and I do not control for you aught from Allah,” ().
Then, the Almighty God mentions his intention to migrate to the holy land and his prayer for good descendents: And they desired a war against him, but We brought them low. And he said: “Surely I go to my Lord; He will guide me: My Lord! Grant me of the good ones,” (). Then He talks about his travel to the holy land and granting of good children to him: And they desired a war on him, but We made them the greatest losers. And We delivered him as well as Lot (removing them) to the land which We had blessed for all people. And We gave him Isaac, and Jacob as a father gift; and We made (them) good ones, (). “And I will withdraw from you and what you call on besides Allah, and I will call upon my Lord; may be I shall not remain unblessed in calling upon my Lord.” So when he withdrew from them and what they worshipped besides Allah, We gave to him Isaac and Jacob, and each one of them We made a prophet, ().
Finally, the Almighty describes Abraham’s last prayer in Mecca which had taken place towards the end of his life after his migration to the holy land, after his children were born, after he had settled Ishmael in Mecca, after the town was settled and the Kaʿbah had been built—that is the last statement of Abraham quoted in the noble Qur’an: And when Abraham said: “My Lord! Make this city secure, and save me and my sons from worshipping idols…O our Lord! Surely I have settled a part of my offspring in a valley uncultivable near Thy Sacred House, our Lord! That they may establish prayer …Praise be to Allah, Who gave me in old age Ishmael and Isaac; most surely my Lord is the Hearer of prayer…O our Lord, grant me protection and my parents and the believers on the day when the reckoning shall come to pass,” ().
The sequence of the verse and its context are the best indication that Abraham’s father for whom he prayed in this verse is other than the person mentioned in the verse: “to his father, Azar.” The verses clearly state that Abraham prayed for his forgiveness based on the promise that he made to him and then he disassociated from him when he found out that he was God’s enemy. There is no sense in him repeating the prayer for someone from whom he has disassociated and sought refuge with his Lord. So “ his father Azar” is not his real father for whom he prayed along with his mother in his last prayer.
A subtle proof in this last prayer of Abraham is the term wālidayya (my parents): the term wālid is not used but for the real father from whom one is born, whereas in the previous prayer “and forgive my father, for surely he is of those who have gone astray;” (), and other verses where Azar has been mentioned, Abraham has used the term ab which can also be used for the grandfather, uncle and others. The Holy Qur’an contain examples of this usage (of ab or its plural ābāʾ): Or, were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons: “What will you worship after me?” They said: “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, One God only, and to Him do we submit;” (). Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob, and Ishmael was his uncle, but were described as ab. Also, the verse where Joseph says, “And I follow the religion of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob…” (). Isaac was the grandfather of Joseph, and Abraham was his great grandfather, but both were described as ab.
In conclusion, the Azar mentioned in the verse under discussion is not the real father of Abraham; rather he had certain qualifications that allowed the usage of ab (father) for him, and so Abraham addressed him by saying “O my father.” Arabic language permits the usage of ab for the grandfather, the uncle, the stepfather, the guardian and every elder who commands authority. This extensive usage of the term ab is not confined to the Arabic language rather other languages also have similar kind of usage for the terms like mother, uncle, brother, sister, head, eye, mouth, hand, arm, finger, etc., which can be discerned by one who is familiar with the subtlety and the delicacy in comprehension and expression.
It is clear, firstly, that there is no need to get into the traditional, historical and literal discussions about the term ab and whether Azar is a proper name or a good or bad nickname or name of an idol. There is no need for any of this in understanding the meaning of this verse. Moreover, most of what exists on this subject is arbitrary views without any proof, disturbing the apparent meaning of the verse and its context by bringing in astonishing combinations that they mention for the sentence “Azar: Do you take idols for gods?” in the form of relocating the phrases or deleting them and adding in implied phrases.
Secondly, Abraham’s real father is other than Azar but the Qur’an has not spelled out his name; it has indeed occurred in the traditions and is supported by what is seen in the Old Testament that his name is Tārikh.
One of the delusions of some commentators is that the Noble Qur’an while mentioning the history of the prophets and the nations and the stories of the past, ignores important points that are considered essential elements of the stories such as the date of the event, its location, and its geographical, social and political circumstances which were crucial in formation of the inner dynamics in occurrence of the events. From such points in the matter under discussion are elements crucial in understanding this story, such as the information about the name of Abraham’s father, his genealogy, the history of the era of his childhood, movement, call and migration. (But the Qur’an is silent about it.)
This is so, in their view, because the Qur’an in its stories has adopted the path guided by the art of true story-telling: the story-teller selects in his story every possible method that takes him to his goal and purpose in a good way and represents the objective in a full and mature form without putting extra efforts in distinguishing the true elements of the story from the defective ones. Therefore, in order to achieve its goal of guidance towards the success, it was okay for the Qur’an to adopt stories that were in circulation among the people or among the Ahl al-Kitāb of the Prophet’s days even if their authenticity was not verified and lacked the crucial elements or was just an imaginary story (such as the story of Moses and the young lad or those who abandoned their cities in thousands in order to flee death, etc.)—the art of story-telling does not exclude anything of this category after the story-teller has determined that the story is the most eloquent means and the most easy method of reaching the goal.
This is, of course, incorrect. What has been mentioned about the art of story-telling is valid but it does not apply to the Qur’an because the Qur’an is not a book of history nor a page from the pages of the imaginary stories rather it is a glorious book which is protected from falsehood from all directions. It is definitely the speech of the Almighty God and He does not say anything but the truth. There is nothing after truth but misguidance; He does not use falsehood in order to promote the truth nor does He support guidance by means of misguidance. It is a book that guides to the truth and the right path; in it is a convincing proof for one who beholds it, and it is against him who forsakes it.
How can a scholar who researches for the purpose of the Qur’an believe that it contains wrong ideas or false stories or superstitions or fanaticism?
I don’t mean to say that believing in God, His Messenger and what His Messenger has brought necessarily means that one should deny that the Qur’an contains anything falsehood or lie or superstitious—even though it is such; nor do I mean that every person with valid intelligence and sound thoughts should humble himself to the Qur’an by affirming its truth and denying every falsehood and misguidance from it through the means of knowledge that he has attained to understand it—even though the Qur’an is such.
What I am actually saying is that the Qur’an itself claims that it is the Divine Speech, written for guiding the people to their real success, it guides by the truth and towards the truth; and therefore it is necessary for one who interprets such a book and looks for its purpose and message that he should consider it as truthful in its speech, factual in its reports and whatever it explains, or he should evaluate it on basis of its purposes and goals as a guide to the path which is free from falsehood, conveying the wayfarer to an immaculate destination.
How can it be that the goal is absolutely true yet falsehood creeps along its path which calls to that goal? How can an issue be the final word yet is considered as superstitious? How can it be that the statement or news is God’s speech who knows the unseen of the heavens and the earth yet ignorance, stupidity, and error would advance towards it? Can light produce darkness or ignorance produce knowledge?
This is the only method that an interpreter is not allowed to ignore in exposition of the verses of the Holy Qur’an while he believes that it is the true speech which cannot be touched by falsehood, neither in its destination nor in its path.
As for the discussion where the Qur’an is true in its claim that it is God’s speech and that it is absolutely true in its path as well as its goal or that what does the previous holy books (the Bible and Avesta) say about the Qur’an and its decisions or how does it relate to other historical or natural or mathematical or philosophical or social scholarly discourses? These and similar discussions are outside the realm of Qur’anic exegesis and it is not permissible to combine them with it.
Yes, God’s statement: Do they not then mediate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy; (), says that there are doubts and thoughts that come to the minds giving rise to the idea that the Qur’an has differences in the sense that one of its verse might seem to contradict another or that the contents of its verse might go against the truth and reality. If the Qur’an categorically states that it guides to the truth while its two verses contradict one another (in the sense that whatever is contained by one is the truth while the contents of the other one is not the truth), then the verse: Do they not then mediate on the Qur’an?… clearly states that some verses of the Qur’an are sufficient to dispel the ambiguity from other verses and that some of its verses clarify the unclear concepts of other verses. A scholar searching for the meaning and message of the Qur’an must seek help of some verses in order to understand the others, cite some verses to comprehend the others, and make some verses speak about the others. The Holy Qur’an is a book of call and guidance that does not deviate from its path, even by a step; it is not a book of history or story; its purpose is not that of a historical study nor is its style of the art of story-telling; it does not intend to give the genealogies or the mechanism of time and space nor other details that would enrich a historical study or fictional story.
What is the religious benefit in giving the genealogy of Abraham: son of Tārikh (Terah), son of Nāḥūr (Nahor), son of Sarūj (Serug), son of Raʿau (Reu), son of Fālij (Peleg), son of ʿĀbir (Eber), son of Shāliḥ (Salah), son of Arkshādh (Arphaxad), son of Sam (Shem), son of Noah (Noah)? Or to say that he was born in Ur of Chaldea around 2000 years before Christ in reign of so-and-so king who was born in such a place and reigned for this number of years and died in year so and so?
After the discussing the verses of this section, we shall put together a summary of Abraham’s story scattered in the Qur’an and then what is found in the Old Testament and other sources about his life and personality so that the insightful researcher can fairly see and then judge what the Qur’an has selected and confirmed.
Nonetheless, the Qur’an has not ignored whatever was necessary of the beneficial knowledge and did not forbid any discussion about the universe and its heavenly and earthly dimensions nor did it prevent anyone from enquiring about the stories of the past nations, social norms, previous generations, and seeking help through all that to acquire the necessary knowledge. The Qur’anic verses highly praise knowledge and encourage reflection, contemplation, deliberation and mediation in so many verses that there is no need to list them here.
“Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error”: al-Rāghib in al-Mufradāt says:
“The idol (ṣanam) is a body made from silver or copper or wood that they worshiped in order to seek closeness to the Almighty God, and its plural is aṣnām. The Almighty God said: ‘Do you take idols for gods?’ (); ‘I will certainly do something against your idols…’ ().”
What al-Rāghib says about the idol made from silver or copper or wood is just an example and not the exclusive source of its manufacture, rather it was made from whatever could be used to make an image from a variety of metals, stones and etc. It has been narrated that Banū Ḥunayfah, from al-Yamāmah, used to make an idol from cottage cheese; and sometimes they used to make it from the clay and at other times, it was just an illustrated picture.
In any case, the idols sometimes represented intangible dogmatic entity such as the god of the heaven and the earth, and the god of justice; and sometimes they represented tangible entity such as the sun and the moon. Both types of idols were found among the people of Abraham as seen from the archaeological finds of the ruins of Babylon; they used to worship them in order to seek nearness to their gods and through their gods to Almighty God. This is an obvious example of the foolishness of human thoughts in the sense that he expresses ultimate humility—humility of a servant to his Lord—for an image which (erroneously) represents an entity of great importance, and glorifies it; in reality it means that the ultimate humility expressed by the created being for his Creator is now being expressed by the creator (that is, the human) for his own creation (that is, the idol). A person would take a piece of wood and carve an idol, and then he would place it (in a sacred area), worship it, express humility to it, and humble himself to it! That is why Abraham has used the term “al-aṣnām, the idols” in the verse as an indefinite noun (in other words, without the ‘al’) in order to show their insignificance and ignominy since they are their products, created by their own hands as has been quoted in his statement to his people: Said he: “What! Do you worship what you hew out?” (), and also because they lack the most obvious qualities of divinity: knowledge and power as he said to his sire: What he said to his father: “O my father! Why do you worship what neither hears nor sees, nor does it avail you in the least.” () So, his statement: “Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error,” means: Do you take idols that have no significance in them as gods while God is an entity of great importance and so I consider you and your people to be in manifest error. How can this error not be clear to you because it entails worship and expression of humility from the maker (of the idol) who has knowledge and power of his product that lacks knowledge and power? Although the verse under discussion is one of the arguments (rather summary of many arguments that Abraham presented to his father and his community as described in details in many verses of the Qur’an), it is the first argument he had with his father and his community. The arguments of Abraham that the Almighty God has described consists of his argument with his father and his community on idol-worshiping, his argument on worshiping the star, the sun, and the moon, and his argument with the king.
As for his argument against worship of the star, the moon and the sun, the verses prove that it was done after the argument against idol- worshiping. Reflection and deeper insight (into the verses) show that his argument against the king occurred after his mission was known, and his opposition to paganism and Sabianism had spread, and after breaking of the idols; and the beginning of his arguments was his opposition to the faith of his father and those associated to him before he confronted the people and opposed them. The first argument that he presented for monotheism was his argument with his father and his community regarding idol-worshiping.
وَكَذَٰلِكَ نُرِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ مَلَكُوتَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلِيَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُوقِنِينَ ٧٥
(6:75) And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and so that he might be of those who are sure:
The context shows that the term “thus” refers to what was contained in the previous verse: “…I see you and your people in manifest error” in the sense that Abraham was shown the truth in that (argument). So the meaning would be: ‘And with such an example of demonstration, We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth.’ Based on this demonstrative pronoun and the indication in the following verse: (when the night over-shadowed him) which shows the connection of the later verses to the previous ones, the word “We show” refers to the past event (even though it has occurred in a future tense) just like the verse: And We desired to bestow a favour upon those who were deemed weak in the land… ().
So, the meaning of this verse would be as follows: Verily We have shown Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth that caused him to argue with his father and his people in the matter of the idols making manifest to them their error. Hence We supported him with this providence and gift (that is, showing of the Kingdom), so he was under this state (of Divine Grace) until the night over-shadowed him and he saw the star.
Therefore, the opinion expressed by some commentators that the words And thus We show… is like a parenthetical clause with no connection to verses before and after it, is not valid and should not be accepted. Same goes for their opinion that Abraham was shown the Kingdom first time when the night over-shadowed him and he saw a star.
…the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth: “The kingdom” (al-malakūt) is from al-mulk (authority, dominance) which is a verbal noun and implies the intensity of the meaning of dominance (like al-Ṭāghūt, the oppressor, and al-jabarūt, powerful, in relation to al-Ṭughyān and al-jabr or al-jubrān respectively). The meaning used in the Qur’an is its actual literal meaning without any modification like the other words used in the Divine Speech; of course, the corroborative application of that what be different. For example, the terms al-mulk, and al-malakūt are used by us for a kind of dominance which is of subjective and relative meaning which we have taken into consideration because of the social necessity of organizing the actions and the persons into a system that will lead to peace, justice and collective energy. Also, this dominance has the potential of being transferred, gifted, usurped and taken by force as we always witness in human societies.
Even though this subjective and relative meaning of al-mulk can be applied to the Almighty God in the sense that the true dominance in human society belongs to God, as He says: …the judgement is only Allah’s… (); All praise is due to Him in this (life) and the hereafter… (), but deeper insight into the conventional meaning of al-mulk (dominance) reveals its application on entities in such a way that it can neither end nor be transferred. For example, a person has mulk, dominance, upon himself in the sense that he has complete power on his hearing, sight and other actions that emanate from his limbs; so his ears hear and his eyes see, based on his intention and command, and they don’t follow the intentions and commands of other people. This is the real meaning of mulk and we don’t doubt its existence within ourselves in such a way that it can neither end nor be transferred. So, a person has dominance over his own strength and actions, and all of them neither is dependent on his existence, neither independent from it nor free from its need. An eye sees by the permission of the person who sees through it and the ear hears by his permission; if the person didn’t exist, there would be no eyes nor any act of seeing and no ears nor any act of hearing. Similar to the situation of the citizen of a society: he acts within it by the permission of the king or the ruler, if there was no managing power that coordinates the elements of the society, there would be no society; if he disallows certain activities, a citizen would not be able to do that (without facing the consequences).
No doubt, this meaning of mulk (dominance) exists for Almighty God on whom depends the creation of things and managing of the system (of universe); no creation is free from need of the Glorified Creator, neither in his own being nor in the powers and activities related to him, he has no freedom, neither alone nor when he is part of the various elements of the universe, connected to the energy of the world where some of its parts are mixed with the other forming this general visible system.
The Almighty God says: Say: “O Allah, Master of the Kingdom!” (); Allah’s is the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth… (); Blessed is He in whose hand is the Kingdom, and He has power over all things; who created death and life…Who created the seven heavens one above another… (). These verses, as you can see, relate the mulk (dominance) to creation and to the existence of things from Him; relating the creation and existence of things to Him is the basis for His dominance and that is the meaning of His mulk in which no one is His partner nor does it disappear from Him, it is neither transferable nor can it be delegated in the sense that He is no more required and is replaced by someone else.
This is the meaning of malakūt (kingdom) that has been explained in God’s Word: His command, when He intends anything, is only that He says to it: “Be” and it is. Therefore, Glory be to Him in Whose hand is the Kingdom of every thing, and to Him you shall be brought back, (). The second verse clarifies that the domination on everything depends on the word kun (say) that is uttered by the Almighty and His Word is His Action and that is His creation. Thus it becomes clear that malakūt means the relationship of God to the existence and survival of things; and this relationship of the Creator and the created does not tolerate any partnership, it belongs to Him alone. The status of being the Nourisher that signifies dominance and management does not allow any room for delegation nor transfer of ownership.
Therefore, reflection upon the Kingdom of the universe certainly leads a person to tawḥīd, the concept of monotheism as God says: Do they not consider the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and whatever things Allah has created, and that may be their doom shall have drawn nigh; what announcement would they then believe in after this? (). As you can see, this verse follows the verse in the beginning of sūrah of al-Mulk (ch.67) quoted earlier.
So, by reflecting on the other relevant verses, it becomes indeed clear that the meaning of ‘showing the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth to Abraham’ is that He guided the blessed soul of Abraham to realize the connection of the existence of things to the Almighty, and since this connection does not accept any partnership, he immediately concluded that nothing can be nourished by other than God who has taken upon Himself the management of the system and supervision of the affairs (of the universe). That the idols were images that humans had carved themselves and gave them names that was not authorized by God—such things cannot nourish the humans nor own them while humans have built them with their hands. Moreover, the celestial bodies such as the star, the sun and the moon constantly change from one state to another; they appear and then disappear from people—such things cannot dominate or take upon themselves the management of the universe, as we shall discuss later on.
…and so that he might be of those who are sure: The letter lām (in li-yakūna, so that he might be) is for explanation; and the sentence is connected to another implied sentence as follows: ‘so that he might be this and that and so that he might be of those who are sure.’
Conviction or surety (al-yaqīn) means the knowledge that is not contaminated by doubt in any way or shape. Probably, the verse means that he might be sure of God’s signs to the level described by the Almighty: And We made of them Imāms to guide by Our command as they were patient, and they were certain of Our signs (). This leads to conviction in the Beautiful Names of God and His great attributes. The same kind of conviction has been described regarding the Holy Prophet in what He said: Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs… (); and also what He said: The eye did not dazzle, nor did it exceed the limit. Certainly he saw of the greatest signs of his Lord, (). However, as for the conviction about the Exalted Essence of God is concerned well, the Qur’an places it above the level where any doubt, let alone the knowledge, could perceive it; His Essence is only to be acknowledged submissively.
According to the Divine Word, among the special impacts of “the convincing knowledge” in God’s signs is the lifting of the veil of materialism from the realities of the creation to the extent willed by the Almighty as He says: Nay! If you had known with knowledge of certainty, you should most certainly have seen the hell (); and: Nay! Most surely the record of the righteous shall be in the ‘Illiyīn. And what will you know what the ‘Illiyīn is? It is a written book; those who are drawn near (to God) shall witness it, ().
فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَيْهِ اللَّيْلُ رَأَىٰ كَوْكَبًا ۖ قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي ۖ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَا أُحِبُّ الْآفِلِينَ ٧٦
(6:76) So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; he said: “Is this my Lord?” So when it set, he said: “I do not love the setting ones.
al-Rāghib in his al-Mufradāt says:
“The origin of al-jannu (translated here as over-shadowing) means to cover or conceal something from the senses. It is said: jannah al-layl, ajannahu and janna ʿalayhi; so jannahu means covered it, ajannahu means he made something that would cover it just like qabartuhu, aqbartuhu, saqaytuhu, and asqaytuhu; and janna ʿalayhi means something covered it. The Almighty has said: ‘So when the night (janna ʿalayhi) over-shadowed him…”
So the night over-shadowing him means that it let down the darkness on him which does not occur simply with the setting of the sun.
The verse, “So when the night over-shadowed him” is a follow up of what had passed earlier about negating the worship of idols since both are connected to God’s Word: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. Based on that, the meaning would be: ‘We indeed were showing him some portions of the Kingdom and thus he negated the worshiping of the idols by that, and this situation continued and so when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star and said so-and-so.’
In the sentence: “he saw a star (kawkaban)”, the word kawkab has come as an indefinite noun (that is, without alif and lam) since the passage is linked to narration of and discussion about (Abraham’s argument), and it does not intend to specify that star, whether it was from the planets or the fixed stars because the main argument could apply to any of the stars that rises and sets. However, this does not mean that Abraham pointed to just any star from among the stars without specifying it in any way: Firstly, because the word (as used in this verse) does not support that; it cannot be said about a person who points towards a star from among the countless stars and says: ‘This is my Lord,’ that he just saw a random star and said: ‘This is my Lord.’ Secondly, the context of the verses show that they were a people there who worshiped the specific star towards which Abraham pointed and said what he said about it.
Moreover, the Sabaeans did not worship any star and they did not hold anything sacred except the planets. What supports the view that the star under discussion here was the Venus is because the Sabaeans adored and assigned the worldly events only to the seven celestial bodies that they used to call “the seven planets”: the Moon, the Mercury, the Venus, the Sun, the Mars, the Jupiter, and the Saturn. The people of India were those who used to adore the fixed stars and assign the worldly events to them; so were some sorcerers and Arab idol worshipers and others.
Obviously, the star (mentioned in the verse) was one of the seven planets. The Moon and the Sun have been mentioned later on (in Abraham’s conversation) while the Mercury is rarely seen because of its constrained orbit. Therefore, it must have been one of the remaining four: Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Among these, Venus is the only star whose restrained orbit prevents it from moving away from the Sun more than 47 degrees, and therefore it always follows the Sun without fail: Sometimes it would precede it and rise before the sunrise, and at that time it is known as ‘the morning star’ and then it sets after the sunrise. At other times it follows the Sun and appears after sunset on the western horizon and it stays for a short while in early night before setting—if it is the nights after the middle of the lunar month, e.g., 18th, 19th and 20th, it sets at the time of moonrise; so you will observe that the Sun has set and the Venus will appear on the western horizon and then it will set an hour or two after the sunset, and then at that time or shortly thereafter the Moon will rise. From those four planets, these characteristics are peculiar to Venus, and in other planets like Jupiter, Mars and Saturn these are only incidental which occur only in special situations that it does not register in the mind, and thus it assumes that, that star is the Venus. In any case, Venus is the most beautiful, the most delightful and the most shinning of the twinkling stars that attracts the eyes of a person who is looking at the sky when night descends and darkness overshadows the horizons.
This is the best explanation of the verse based on what comes to the mind when the Almighty says: “So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; he said: ‘This is my Lord. So when it set, he said: I do not love the setting ones,’ (76) Then when he saw the moon rising…” What we have said above is also supported by what has been mentioned in some of the narrations of the Imāms of Ahl al-Bayt that the star (under discussion) was the Venus. Based on this, we can say that Abraham had seen the Venus and that the people believed in the obligation of worshiping it in form of devotion, prayer and offering of sacrifice; and that the Venus was following the Sun at its setting time, and that the night was of the later half of the lunar month. When the night over-shadowed him, he saw the Venus on the western horizon until it set and then he saw the Moon rising thereafter.
Then we come to the sentence: “…he said: ‘This is my Lord.’” The meaning of rabb (Lord) is the owner of things possessed by him, the one who manages their affairs, not the one who created the heavens and the earth and originated everything from non-existence. God, the Almighty is not a body or bodily entity, and He does not occupy space nor can He be an object of indication. What is undoubtedly clear from the statement quoted of the conversation of Abraham with his people concerning the idols is that he had been blessed with proof from His Lord and that he had knowledge about God and His signs—and all these clarified for him that the Almighty God is exalted above any form of body, image and limitations. God quotes his conversation with his father: “O my father! Truly the knowledge has come to me which has not come to you, therefore follow me; I will guide you on a right path…” ().
However, the idol worshipers and the Sabaeans did not ascribe an equal partner to the Almighty God in creation, rather they ascribed the partner in form of someone or something—while being created by God or at least whose existence depended on Him—was assigned by the management of the creation like the god of beauty, the god of justice, the god of fertility or to manage some of the creation, for example, the god of human or the god of a tribe or the god of specific kings and aristocrats. Discoveries of their ruins, their historical reports as well as the existing idol worshipers prove this fact. So, Abraham’s statement about the planet that: “This is my Lord,” intended to prove that it was the god who managed the issues, and not God, the Creator and the Originator.
This is also proven by what been mentioned at the end of the verses under discussion: …he said: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with God). Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists.” ). It obviously means that he is moving away from polytheism and reaches to the conclusion that God has no partner; he does not talk about proving God’s existence.
The apparent meaning of the verses show that Abraham accepted the fact that for all things there is God, the Originator, the Unique, Who has no partner in His Creation and Origination, and that is God, the Sublime; and that humans have a Lord who obviously manages their affairs. His search was only to see whether this Lord who manages the affairs is the same Almighty God to Whom creation and origination is attributed or one of His creations whom He has taken as a partner for Himself and delegated the task of management to him. Therefore, he presents the hypothesis about the star (that they worshiped) and then the moon and then the sun, and looks into each one of them to see whether they are capable of handling the task of managing (the universe in general) and the management of people’s affairs (in particular).
Although this proposition and consideration obviously occurs before attaining the convincing proof of the result—since the result is subsequent to the rational proof—it does not harm Abraham (and his status as a believer). As we had explained earlier, the verses describe the story of Abraham (and the human being) in the first phase of discerning (truth from falsehood) and of being capable of taking on the religious obligations by contemplating in matters of monotheism and other fundamental thoughts, and that he was like a slate devoid of any shapes and writings at all. Then he starts searching and begins by proving certain things and rejecting certain others in order to reach to the true belief and sound faith. All the while, he is on the path of truth and there is no blame on him during the time when he goes through the process between rejecting certain things out of lack of distinction and accepting other things on basis of complete understanding and full knowledge of the truth.
Human life by necessity goes through the stage when it transforms from lack of knowledge about essential beliefs to the stage of awareness when rationally he is obliged to seek and consider (the truth). This is a general phenomenon in human life in which he progresses from deficiency to perfection; all humans are equal in this matter. Of course, there are exceptions in case of some individuals that goes against this general phenomenon in which they demonstrate perceptive faculty and knowledge before the normal age of discernment and maturity as the Qur’an has mentioned about Jesus and John (Yaḥyā)—that is indeed against the prevailing norm and not all human have that quality nor all prophets have done such a thing.
In short, the human being does not possess the conditions that will obligate him to have sound belief or do good deeds from the first day when the soul is breathed into him; he gradually gains that ability until the conditions are fulfilled which then obligates him to seek and consider the truth. So, his life is indeed divided into two parts: before the age of discernment and maturity and after the age of discernment and maturity, and it is in the latter stage that he is capable of dealing with matters of belief and confronts them in that stage of life. Between these two phases, there is an intermediary stage where he is confronted with the duty of seeking and considering the truth. Therein he seeks the true belief to which his nature guides him by means of arguments: Does he or the universe exist without a creator or do they have a creator? If yes, is the creator one or has he a partner? Then he looks at the signs visible in the universe for these propositions and reflects on them whether they support or deny his propositions, and so he accepts one and rejects the other. As long as his process of arguments does not reach a solid conclusion, he is uncertain and undecided; he is only at stage of assumption and reflection on the idea.
Based on this reflection, the statement of Abraham about the star: “This is my Lord,” as well as his forthcoming statements about the moon and the sun are not based on certainty and firmness that would be considered as polytheism. It is just a proposition that needs to be considered in relation to the signs that prove and support it. This may be proved from the verses that appear to say that he was in the state of anticipation and expectation. This is one perspective.
However, Abraham’s statement in his argument with his father that the Almighty God has narrated in sūrah of Maryam (ch.19): “O my father! Truly the knowledge has come to me which has not come to you, therefore follow me; I will guide you on a right path. O my father! Serve not the Satan; surely the Satan is disobedient to the Beneficent (God). O my father! Surely I fear that a punishment from the Beneficent (God) should afflict you so that you should be a friend of the Satan.” He said: “Do you dislike my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist, I will certainly revile you, and leave me for a time.” He (Abraham) said: “Peace be on you, I will pray to my Lord to forgive you; surely He is ever Affectionate to me;” (), proves that he (Abraham) was fully aware of the reality, and that the one who manages his affairs is affectionate towards him and greatly honours him, is the Almighty God and none else.
Therefore, his statement: “This is my Lord”, is of a genre in which a person considers himself to be like them, goes along with them (in their ideas), and then presents them with the evidence that proves the weakness of their idea and the falsity of their statement. This method of argument is most appealing to the opponent’s sense of justice, most effective in subduing his bias and prejudice, and most suitable in making him listen to the argument.
So when it set, he said: ‘I do not love the setting ones’: al-Ufūl (means setting (of something; here it means setting of the star). It proves the falsity of the star’s lordship by attributing the quality of setting to it. The star that sets is cut off from those upon whom it had risen, and the task of managing the creation does not sit well with being cut off.
Indeed, godship and dependency is a real relationship between the Lord and the one who is nourished by Him, and that leads to the love of nourished one towards His Lord because of the natural attraction towards Him and being linked to Him. Love cannot be based on something that perishes and whose beauty ends, the same beauty that was reason for love. What we observe in the human that he often falls in love with the present and prevailing beauty because he is intensely engrossed into it and he does not pay any attention to the fact that one day it will end and vanish. Therefore, the Lord must be ever-living and not subject to change like the embellished decorations that live and then die, exist and then perish, rise and then set, appear and then disappear, attain youthfulness and then become old, are delightful and then become disfigured. This is a rational argument even though it might appear as rhetoric or poetry. Ponder on it.
Anyway, Abraham invalidated the lordship of the star on basis of its setting dimension in two ways: Either by alluding to the fact that he does not love it because of its setting since dependency and servitude is based on love, and one who does not love something cannot worship it. It has been narrated from Imām al-Ṣādiq: “Is religion anything but love?” We have explained that earlier. Or by basing on absence of love and the issue of setting was mentioned as a justification for not loving it since it is contrary to lordship and divinity.
Being object of love is an essential concomitant for lordship and divinity; and something that lacks the true and lasting beauty cannot be an object of love, and therefore it cannot be the lord. The context of the argument in this verse is apparently based on this point.
In this conversation of Abraham, following points can be discerned:
Firstly, there is an indication of essential link between love and lordship or between love and sense of servitude.
Secondly, Abraham has used the attribute common between the star and between the moon and the sun (that is, all of them rise and then set), and has repeated the argument in their cases also. This was done either because he was unaware, as mentioned earlier, that the moon and the sun also rise and set in the same way as the star or because the people in all three cases were different groups.
Thirdly, in his statement of negating the love when he says: “I do not love the setting ones”, he has used the style (al-āfilīyn, the setting ones) that is used for intelligent beings (and not for inanimate objects like the moon and the sun). This was sort of an indication that something that lacks perception and reason does not at all deserve lordship as he has indicated in his statement: “O my father! Why do you worship what neither hears nor sees, nor does it avail you in the least;” (), and his other statement: When he said to his father and his people: “What do you worship?” They said: “We worship idols, so we shall be their votaries.” He said: “Do they hear you when you call? Or do they profit you or cause you harm?” They said: “Nay, we found our fathers doing so.” (). First he asked them about their idols as if he did not know anything about them; and so they replied to him that they are statues and images devoid of perception and sensation. Then he asked them about their knowledge and power while he used terms associated with those who have intelligence as an indication that God must possess this quality of intelligence.
فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي ۖ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِنْ لَمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ ٧٧
(6:77) Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: “This is my Lord.” So when it set, he said: “If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.”
al-Buzūgh means the rising. As for the discussion about “Then when he saw…” that has already passed earlier because of its connection to the previous argument. Abraham’s statement that “This is my Lord” is of a genre in which a person goes along with the others as was discussed in the previous verse.
When the moon set, he said: “If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.” Here Abraham has taken into consideration what he had said earlier in invalidating the argument for lordship of the star—since both the star and the moon rise and set, and setting is not suitable for lordship as he said: I do not love the setting ones, so the conclusion is the same for both. So his statement: “If my Lord had not guided me…” is linked to the observation he had made (earlier) concerning the moon that “This is my Lord”: if he had continued to insist on it, then he would have been in error and one of those misguided individuals who believed in the lordship of the moon. The statement about the moon was an error for the same reason as given earlier about the star since the quality of setting is not exclusive to it; rather it can apply to it as well as other similar entities.
From the above, we can surmise the following:
Firstly, there were people there who believed in the lordship of the moon just as those who believed in the star. Moreover, the verse that follows: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with Allah),” () is also indicative of this fact.
Secondly, Abraham was at that time in state of search, hoping to attain Divine guidance and expecting his Lord’s grace in form of the sound belief and the indisputable perspective irrespective of the fact whether his statements are taken in the literal sense (supposing that he was indeed seeking the truth) or in the rhetoric sense (in which he initially agrees with a hypothesis in order to show its flaw). This was discussed earlier.
Thirdly, Abraham was certain that he has a Lord who manages his guidance and his other affairs and that he was only seeking Him, either in the real sense or in the sense of pretence, so that he may identify Him: is He Himself the one who created the heavens and the earth or was it created by some of His creation? And when it dawned upon him that the star and the moon are incapable of such a task because of their setting, he expected his Lord to guide him towards Himself and purify him of the misguidance of those who were in error.
فَلَمَّا رَأَى الشَّمْسَ بَازِغَةً قَالَ هَٰذَا رَبِّي هَٰذَا أَكْبَرُ ۖ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَتْ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ ٧٨
(6:78) Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: “This is my Lord; this is the greatest.” So when it set, he said: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with Allah).”
“Then when” is an indication of the connection of this statement with the previous argument; and even the words: “This is my Lord” has occurred either in hypothetical sense or in the style of initially agreeing with the view (in order to disprove it) as was discussed in previous verse.
(On Usage of Masculine Pronoun for a Feminine Noun)
The words: “This is my Lord” was also repeated in case of the moon when he saw it rising after having seen the star; and that is why, in this third case, he added the description: “this is the greatest” for the sun as final hypothesis of its lordship after proving the first two cases as invalid. It was mentioned earlier that using of the pronoun hādhā ( this) while pointing to the sun was done because Abraham didn’t know that it was a celestial body that rises and sets from our perspective every day and night, and that the phenomenon of day and night as well as the four seasons are related to it.
Using the masculine pronoun is an indication that the person was not able to clearly distinguish the entity of his point of reference: it is just like the situation when you see shape of a person coming to you from far but you are unable to distinguish it as male or female, and so you say: “Who is this?” (This (hādhā) is masculine.) Similar to a situation where you cannot discern whether the shape is of a living being or an object, and so you say: “Who is this?” (Using the same hādhā.) Probably this was the first time that Abraham had come out to his uncle and his people from isolation and had not witnessed the outside world and the human society, and so when he saw a celestial body like the star and the moon and the sun—whenever he saw each one of them as a shinning lamp—he said: “This is my Lord”, as if he had no complete knowledge of it as we had mentioned earlier.
This is supported in a way by his statement: So when it set, he said: “I do not love the setting ones.” There is an indication in it that Abraham assumed momentarily that the star was the Lord until he saw its setting and then decided that his assumption was wrong and it can’t be the lord. If he had known that the star sets, then he would have denied its lordship earlier as he had done in case of the idols when he said to his uncle: “Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error,” (); and: “O my father! Why do you worship what neither hears nor sees, nor does it avail you in the least,” ().
It is also possible to say that Abraham delayed his statement: “I do not love the setting ones”, until the star set so that he could prove to them what could be discerned by sense of observation as he had done when he smashed the idols except the biggest one so that they can see the inability of the idols and that they are just inanimate objects that cannot prevent any harm or evil from themselves.
In explaining the masculine usage of the demonstrative pronoun “this” (hādhā ), the exegetes have treaded different paths:
(1) Some say that using the masculine pronoun was in order to link it to the point of reference or the celestial bright body; in other words, it says: “this point of reference or this celestial bright body is my Lord since it is the greatest.” (That is, it does not refer to the sun, which is a feminine noun.)
Although using the masculine pronounce with such an explanation is valid but there must be a reason to justify such a usage. It is not correct to do so without a proper justification, otherwise it will be permissible to change every feminine pronoun into masculine arbitrarily and that will ruin the language itself.
(2) Some say that (the usage of masculine pronoun for a feminine object) is based on the rule of the subject following the predicate in its gender since the terms “the Lord” and “the greatest” are masculine therefore the demonstrative pronoun has followed the masculine form. An example of a reverse form can be seen in the Almighty’s Word: Then their excuse would be nothing but that they would say… () in which the masculine predicate has followed the feminine subject.
Moreover, there is a view that the people of Abraham’s era believed in feminine gods also as they believed in masculine ones, and they describe the female gods as ilāhah (god), rabbah (lord) (both ending with a feminine h), bint Allah (God’s daughter) and zawjat al-rabb (wife of the lord). Based on this, it was appropriate to use the feminine rabbah (instead of rabb) and so the sentence should have been hādhihi rabbatī or Ālihatī. The criticism on the predicate following the gender of the subject in: “This is my Lord”, also applies to the subject following the predicate. Thus there would be no meaning in the rule of following the pronouns.
The sentence: This is greater is the predicate which has an elative noun (‘greater’) and the rule in elative noun is that if it comes as a predicate, it should come in the noun form of af‘al and it is neutral as far as gender is considered. So, it can be said that “Zayd is afḍal (better) than ‘Umar” and also “Laylā is ajmal (more beautiful) than Salmā.” With such a gender-neutral entity, we do not accept that it is from the masculine words that follows the subject.
(3) Some say that using masculine form in the demonstrative pro- noun was for honouring the sun since lordship is attributed to it—this is done to shield the Lord from quality of femininity.
However, they did not consider femininity as an inferior quality that needed to be shielded from divinity. The people of Babylon themselves had female gods such as Ninmah, the mother goddess, Ninkarrak, the daughter of Anu (a god of heaven), Mylitta, wife of Shamash, Zarbanit, the goddess of nursing, and goddess Anunnaki. A group of Arab polytheists used to worship the angels and consider them as God’s daughters. In interpretation of the verse: They did not call besides Him on any thing but females; (), it is said that they used to call their gods by female names and would say: ‘female of so-and-so tribe’ referring to the idol that the tribe worshiped.
(4) Some among the exegetes say that the people of Abraham used to worship the sun as the male god and believed that he had a wife by the name of Anuunit. And so the verse under discussion reflects their belief.
However, their belief that the sun is male does not justify changing the femininity of the word to masculine. Moreover, Abraham’s statement to Nimrod: So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it (you) from the west; () (“it” is a feminine pronoun) while referring to the sun defies their claim.
(5) Some say that Abraham spoke Syriac language, the language of his people, and they did not differentiate between the pronouns and the demonstrative pronouns on gender lines rather they used masculine form for all; and that the Noble Qur’an has maintained his statement accordingly in masculine form.
However, this is not an acceptable explanation since it is common to follow the grammar rules of the words in spite of difference in languages; it is actually permission to follow the grammar rules especially when it comes to the meaning that is not dependent on specific wordings. Moreover, the Almighty has quoted many arguments and prayers from Abraham in the Qur’an and in many of those cases the feminine gender has been considered appropriately. So, why should this case be different by ignoring the femininity of the pronouns? Even in his statement when arguing with the king of Babylon: So surely Allah brings the sun from the east, then bring it (you) from the west, (). Abraham has used a feminine pronoun while referring to the sun.
(6) The most surprising of the views on this matter is what has been mentioned by some commentators stubbornly that Abraham as well as Ishmael and Hājar used to speak the old Arabic language. The summary of his argument is the following: The anthropologists have proven that the Arabs of the Peninsula, from dawn of history, had colonized the Chaldean cities as well as Egypt and their language had dominated those regions. Some of them have clearly stated that King Hammurabi, who was a contemporary of Abraham, was an Arab; and that Hammurabi was a kind and peaceful ruler, and has been described in the Old Testament as a great priest. It also says that Hammurabi blessed Abraham and that Abraham gave him the tenth of everything. He also says: It is known in the books of ḥadīth and Arabic history that Abraham settled his son, Ishmael, with his Egyptian mother Hājar in the valley which emerged later on as the city of Mecca, and that God made a group from the Jurham tribe to settle with them and be subservient to them; and that Abraham used to periodically visit them both, and that he and Ishmael built the Holy House of God and spread the faith of monotheism in the Arab land. It says in a ḥadīth that Abraham came once to Mecca to visit his son, who had gone for hunting, and so he talked with his wife who was from Jurham tribe and he was not pleased with her attitude. Then he came again to visit his son and did not find him, and so he talked with his another wife who invited him to come in and washed his head. Abraham was pleased with her and prayed for her. All this proves that he used to speak Arabic. This is the summary of that commentator’s argument.
However, this is not a plausible explanation because proximity of the Arabs of the Peninsula to Egypt and Chaldean land, and their interaction with them or colonizing and dominating them does not necessarily mean that their language was changed to Arabic. The language of Egypt was Egyptian and the language of Chaldean and Assyrian people was Syriac. Yes such interaction mutually influences the languages as far as some names and words are concerned as we see in the Holy Qur’an example of words like al-qisṭās and al-istabraq, etc.
As for his statement that Hammurabi was a contemporary of Abraham, that cannot be collaborated by reliable historical sources, the ruins of Babylon that have been discovered, and the stone known as Code of Hammurabi (that was devised and implemented by him in his kingdom and it is known as the most ancient code of law in the world). Some scholars have said that Hammurabi’s reign was between 1686 BC and 1728 BC; while other have said that he ruled Babylon during 2232–2287 BC. Whereas Abraham lived around 2000 BC. Moreover, Hammurabi was an idol worshiper, and under the code of law in the stone (known as the Code of Hammurabi), he seeks help from gods for perpetuity of his laws, popular support for it and punishment for those who intend to change or oppose it.
As for his statement about Abraham settling his son and his slave-girl in the southwest plains of Arabia, building of the Holy Kaʿbah, spreading God’s religion, and his mutual understanding with the Arabs—none of this proves that he used to talk in Arabic language. This is obvious.
Let us now return to our discussion. God’s statement: “then when” in () Then when he saw the sun rising, shows its connection to the earlier verse: So when it set, he said: “If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.” It proves that the moon had already set when Abraham saw the sun rising. This could have happened only in autumn or winter in northern altitudes (that had the lands of Chaldea) when nights are longer, especially when the moon is in the southern constellation like the Archer and the Capricorn. During such conditions, the moon can set before the sun in the latter half of the lunar month. We earlier saw God’s statement: So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; he said: “This is my Lord.” So when it set, he said: “I do not love the setting ones.” Then when he saw the moon rising, he said: “Is this my Lord?” (). Upon added reflection, the statement proves that the night was from the latter half of the lunar month and that the star was the Venus which Abraham saw first in the west while it was descending and then he witnessed its setting and then the rising of the moon from the east.
The verses prove that Abraham disputed with his people about the idols during the daytime and was engaged with them on that day till the night over-shaded him and at that time he saw the Venus and the people who worship it. So, he went along with them in (believing in) its lordship by saying: “This is my Lord.” He continued to observe it until it set. And that night was from the long nights of the latter half of the lunar month and perhaps the moon was in orbit in the shorter circle from the southern circles of the orbit but when it set, he rejected its lordship. He continued to look for his Lord and sought His refugee against misguidance until the sun rose. He saw it rising and of bigger size than whatever he had seen earlier of the star and the moon; so he again joined them in (believing in) its lordship even though the falsity of the lordship of the star and the moon was clear to him and they were both celestial bright bodies like it but he took its bigger size as a justification to accept its lordship and ended up saying: “This is my Lord; it is bigger.” He sat anticipating the future until the sun also set and so he rejected its lordship and polytheism of his people by saying: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with Allah).” And he affirmed the lordship of Almighty God as he had affirmed His divinity in the sense of creating the heavens and the earth and originating them. So he said: “Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him—that is, being submissive to the Divinity—Who originated the heavens and the earth,—without any deviation to the right or the left—and I am not of the polytheists,”—by associating anything from His creation and invention to Him in worship and submission, ().
It has been mentioned earlier that the presence of God’s statement: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and so that he might be of those who are sure, in midst of these verses proves that Abraham indeed deduced the arguments (that he used against his father and his people) from what he used to see of the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and that God has blessed him with the surety—the result of showing him the kingdom—upon his heart. And this is clear evidence that the arguments that Abraham used were demonstrative proof emanating from the breast of conviction as seen in our explanation of his words: “I do not love the setting ones.”
The following points become clear from the previous discussion:
Firstly, Abraham’s statement that: “I do not love the setting ones,” is a demonstrative convincing argument based on him not loving the setting ones and the incompatibility of setting with divinity.
A commentator has apparently opined that Abraham’s argument was a common argument and not a demonstrative argument. He says: “The truth is that the statement (of Abraham) was a subtle allusion, not an explicit speculative argument,” in which he is alluding to his people’s ignorance in worshiping the stars: they are worshiping something that hides itself from them and is unaware of their act of worship. This is the basis of considering ‘setting’ as incomputable with divinity (as opposed to ‘rising’ and ‘appearing’) and he based his argument on it since one of the qualities of divinity is appearance even though His appearance is different to that of His creation.
This commentator is, first of all, oblivious of the fact that placing of the Almighty’s statement: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and so that he might be of those who are sure, among the verses containing the arguments is the strongest evidence that his arguments were based on what he saw of the Divine Kingdom which is the basis of his conviction about God and His signs. With this proof, how is it conceivable that his argument was a common and not a demonstrative one?
The second point of this commentator’s oblivion is that the argument is based on love and absence of love, not on the issue of ‘setting’. Moreover, even if the argument is based on the issue of ‘setting’, that does not exclude it from being a demonstrative argument. Abraham indeed described his reason for repudiating their divinity by saying that he found them to be setting and that he does not love the setting ones and so he does not worship them. It is a fact that a human being worships his Lord because He is the Lord, that is, He manages the affair of the human being, and grants him life, sustenance, health, wealth, safety, power, knowledge and others things that he needs for his survival, so he is connected to His Lord from all aspects of existence. Thus, it is part of human nature that he should love whatever he needs and he should love whoever provides those needs; no sensible person can doubt this reality. So, the human being worships the Lord because he loves Him in order to seek his benefits or to avert harm from himself or both.
It is also human nature that he does not link himself to something that has no permanence except that sometimes greed or lust diverts his nature towards the enjoyment and turns him away from reflecting on its temporary and passing phase. The Noble Qur’an has frequently used this style to condemn the world and has discouraged the people from excessive attachment to its beauties and submerging into its desires. For example: The likeness of this world’s life is only as water which We sent down from the sky; by its mingling the herbage of the earth of which men and cattle eat grows; until when the earth puts on its golden raiment and it becomes garnished, and its people think that they have power over it, Our command comes to it, by night or by day, so We render it as reaped, as though it had not been in existence yesterday… (); What is with you passes away and what is with Allah is enduring… (); and …what is with Allah is better and more lasting… ().
So, Abraham’s statement that: “I do not love the setting ones”, proves that a thing that disappears from humans and has neither permanence nor stability does not deserve to be loved by them or be attached to them. The God that a human being worships should be such that he can love Him, and so it follows that God cannot disappear from him and lose him; and therefore these celestial bodies do not deserve the title of divinity. This is, as you can see, an argument that is known to the common person as well as the scholars.
A third point of this commentator’s confusion is between the rising (al-buzūgh) and the appearance (al-ẓuhūr), and he has concluded that “the rising” is compatible with divinity; rather Abraham’s statement is based on the fact of rising since one of the qualities of the Lord is to be visible. (Our response is that) what has been mentioned in the verse—and that is not the basis of the argument—is al-buzūgh which means rising and appearing after being in concealment and that is incompatible with divinity. Moreover, the question: “Why did Abraham base his argument on setting (al-ufūl) and not on rising (al-buzūgh)?” remains unanswered.
Secondly, considering “the setting” (al-ufūl) as part of the argument and not “the rising” (al-buzūgh) is so because rising, unlike setting, does not emanate the lack of love which is the basis of the argument. This explains the response given (by al-Zamakhsharī) in al-Kashshāf about using al-ufūl instead of al-buzūgh: “If you say: ‘Why did he argue against them on basis of setting and not rising while both have phenomenon of change from a state to another?’ I would say: ‘The argument based on setting is clearer since its change is associated with disappearance and concealment.’ “ The argument, as you now know, is based on lack of love and not the setting itself that would demand the shift from rising to setting. (And so this question and its answer are redundant.)
Thirdly, the argument only intends to negate the ‘lordship’ of the three celestial bodies in the sense of managing the world or the human life, and not the ‘lordship’ in sense of creation and management altogether. The idol-worshipers and star-worshipers themselves do not deny that their gods are not the Lord (in sense of the Creator) that is in fact God the One only who has no partner.
This explains the opinion of some theologians who say that “the setting” has been taken as basis of the argument since it denotes a possible being, and whatever is possible is dependent on a cause and stands at the end of the chain of causes linked to the Necessary Being. This is similar to the understanding of other scholars who say that “the setting” negates divinity because it is a movement and every movement must have a mover, and that chain must stop at the First Mover who does not need anyone and does not change, and that is the Almighty God.
Both these arguments, while being demonstrative arguments, are actually negating from the dependent and moving entities the status of lordship in the sense of the First Cause upon whom all the causes are dependent, and in the sense of the Creator and Sustainer upon whom all the causes rely. However, the worshipers of the stars such as the Sabaeans and others, even though they believed that the celestial bodies were eternal, everlasting and constantly in movement, yet they did not deny that all these are effects dependent in their existence and their power upon the Almighty. So these two explanations are relevant to the atheists who deny the existence of the Creator, and not to the Sabaeans and the idol-worshipers of multiple gods whom Abraham was addressing in his arguments. Moreover, you know that the argument was not based on the phenomenon of ‘setting’ rather on the lack of love for something that sets and disappears.
As for the justification of basing the argument on the concept of possible being (that is dependent) and the concept of movement (by explaining “the setting” as something that is dependent and moved) is not valid since the Arabs did not equate ‘setting’ with dependence or createdness nor with change or movement. The commentator is oblivious of the fact that they don’t claim that “the setting” in the verse means dependency or movement, rather they say that “the setting” is used as an argument to prove dependency or movement and change. As for the meaning of “the setting” as disappearance after visibility and concealment after appearance, that is incompatible with the status of divinity but is compatible with lordship (in the meaning of lesser gods) as the commentator himself has confessed to it.
Moreover, even the Almighty God is absent from our perception even though no change occurs in neither Him nor the phenomenon of disappearance after visibility, and concealment after appearance occur in His case. Thus, the argument that the disappearance and concealment in case of the Almighty is from our perspective, not from His perspective; and because of our preoccupation with things that divert our attention from Him, not because of limitation in His Being and lack in His power—this argument is not helpful because the disappearance of these celestial bodies, especially the daily movement of the sun, is also from our perspective since we are part of the earth that rotates daily on its own axis and turns us away from the direction of these celestial bodies; so in reality, it is us who set down from them after having risen up towards them, and it is just delusion in perception that makes us think otherwise.
al-Rāzī has tried to reconcile all these views in his commentary as follows: “al-Ufūl means disappearance of a thing after its visibility. Once you know this, a person can raise a question: al-Ufūl indeed proves createdness since it is part of a movement; and in that sense, rising also proves createdness. So, why did Abraham abandon the rising as basis of the argument and moved on to the setting to prove his point?
“The answer is: No doubt that rising and setting both are equal in proving the createdness of the sun. However, the proof that the Prophets use in calling the people towards God should definitely be obviously clear in a way that it can be understood by the clever, the less intelligent and the intelligent person alike. Although the argument based on movement is strong but it is subtle and only the learned people can perceive it. Whereas the argument based on setting is a clear proof known to everyone: the power of the star disappears with its setting. And so the argument of setting proved the point fully.
“Some research scholars have said that: The act of setting down as dimension of createdness is also ufūl; and the best argument is the one that is suitable for all levels: the experts, the average persons, and the common people: The specialists connect ufūl to the phenomenon of possible and dependent being, and every dependent entity is perpetually in need and the chain of dependence must end with an Omnipotent Being as the Qur’an says: and to your Lord is the goal; (). The average persons connect ufūl to movement, and every moving entity is a created being and every created being is eventually in need of an Eternal and Omnipotent Being; therefore, whatever sets cannot be god since God is the one who is needed by the one who sets. The common people perceive ufūl simply as setting; and they see that whenever a star nears setting, its radiance diminishes, its light decreases and its power vanishes, and it becomes like an abdicated ruler and with such an attribute it lacks divinity. So, this one sentence: ‘I do not love the setting ones’ is comprehensive enough to cover all levels from ‘the ones being near (to God)’ (al-muqarrabūn) to ‘the People of the Right Hand’ (aṣḥābu al-maymanah) and ‘the People of the Left Hand’ (aṣḥābu al-mash’amah). Hence, it becomes the most complete of the proofs and the best of the arguments.
“It also has another subtle point: Abraham was arguing against those who were (not only star-worshipers but also) astrologers. The opinion of the astrologers is that when the star is in the eastern quarter of the horizon rising towards the sky’s zenith, it has strong impact but when it is in the western horizon close to the setting point, it loses the intensity and becomes weaker. Abraham used this subtle point to prove that God is a reality whose power never decreases nor does His perfection ware off while your belief is that the star, when it is in the western horizon, becomes weak, less effective and incapable of having any impact on the world. This proves the fault in the star’s lordship. So, based on the beliefs of the astrologers’ themselves, the phenomenon of setting has stronger appeal in showing the fault in the lordship of the star.” Thus ends the relevant quotation from al-Rāzī in its entirety.
By pondering on what has been quoted, you will realize that al-Rāzī’s mastery in categorizing the argument into various parts based on difference among the people and his various explanations cannot be proven by even a single word of the verse under discussion. Nor does it negate the belief of the Sabaeans and the star-worshipers since they do not believe in the celestial body as the Supreme God who has unlimited and absolute power; rather they believe in it as a dependent created being which is perpetually in motion and the earth is managed by its movement. None of the explanations of al-Rāzī negate this belief. He apparently realized the objection after the passage quoted earlier and so further elaborated the issue and tried at length to get out of the riddle without any success.
Moreover, the second argument that he presented (on the concept of movement) is incomplete. Movement only proves the createdness of the moving entity from perspective of its quality, that is, the movement itself, and not by itself. The details of this argument should be sought in its appropriate place.
Fourthly, Abraham arranged his arguments in accordance with the signs of the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth that Almighty God had shown to him, and whenever the opportunity availed itself to discuss with his father and his people. In this, he used the perceivable items because he had not seen the daily changing phenomenon of the celestial bodies as mentioned earlier or because he wanted to discuss with them on basis of what was physically perceivable to them. Therefore, when he saw one of the three celestial bodies bright and rising, he said: “This is my Lord”; but when he saw it setting, he said: “I do not love the setting ones.”
This will explain the plausible question that arises out of Abraham’s statement: “And when the night overtook him, he saw the star…”, it proves that he was with the people on the day preceding the night, so why did he not first mention the sun to negate its divinity?
It is possible that he came to his people for discussion when the time did not allow him more that whatever he argued with them concerning the idols; and so he was arguing with them during the daytime or for so long until the night overtook him.
There are other possibilities also such as the cloudy skies or that the people used to gather for worship and sacrifice only at the beginning of sunrise and he wanted to physically show them the argument.
Fifthly, it is said that the verses prove that guidance comes from Almighty God, and these verses do not relative misguidance to Him. Indeed His Word: “If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people;” partly proves that the human being, if left on his own nature, would be inflicted with misguidance if his Lord does not guide him. This is also the import of the verse: …and were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have ever been pure… (). Surely you cannot guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He pleases… ()—these verses clarify that the act of misguidance that is attributed to the Almighty refers to the misguidance in form of punishment (for ignoring the divine guidance) and not to initial misguidance. Detailed discussion on this has passed in volume one of this book.
Sixthly, Abraham based his argument in negating the lordship of the three celestial bodies on the premise of not loving the setting ones because of their ufūl, the setting phenomenon. Ufūl means losing something after having found it; and this is an attribute incompatible with the feeling of love that would justify the worship of the beloved. If setting is a repelling attribute in case of material entities (compelling them to cessation, death, perdition and passing away), it will be a convincing argument against polytheism and idol worshiping. It can actually even be an argument against the views of some idol-worshipers who believe in divinity of gods of various categories and luminous entities, and consider them to be beyond the realm of materialism and nature, higher than body and movement—for they clearly confess that even though these entities have pure essence and noble existence, they are perishable in face of the Eternal Light and humble under the Divine Power. With such a quality, their love will be attached only to the One who manages them and not to various gods.
Commentary continues:
إِنِّي وَجَّهْتُ وَجْهِيَ لِلَّذِي فَطَرَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ حَنِيفًا ۖ وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ٧٩
(6:79) “Surely I have turned my face, being upright (ḥanīfan) wholly to Him Who originated (faṭara) the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists.”
(On Faṭara, originated:)
al-Rāghib says in his al-Mufradāt:
“The origin of al-faṭr means the vertical rapture or rip: it is said: ‘Faṭar— so-and-so ripped.’ (Its other derivatives give other means:) Afṭara—he broke the fast; and infaṭara—it sprouted (as in a plant rupturing the earth). Sometimes it occurs in a negative sense such as: he said, ‘Do you see any fuṭūr—(that is, any defect and weakness) in it?’ And sometimes it occurs in a positive sense such as: The heaven shall rend asunder thereby; His promise is ever brought to fulfillment, (). Faṭart al-shāt means ‘I milked the sheep with two fingers.’ Faṭart al-ajīn means ‘I kneaded the dough and then baked a bread immediately.’
“Also, from al-faṭr comes al-fiṭrah, the nature. Faṭara ’llāh al-khalq means God created something and made it in specific mold part of His various actions as He says in His statement: …the nature made by God in which He has made men; ()—this refers to the innate knowledge of the Supreme that He has created among the people. ‘The nature made by God’ means the ability of knowing the true faith that He has instilled in human being as He says: And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: “Allah.” ()”
(On ḥanīf, being upright, wholly:)
al-Rāghib also says:
“al-Ḥanf means turning away from error towards rightfulness while al-janf means turning away from rightfulness towards error. Arabs describe one who had done the pilgrimage or has done circumcision as ḥanīf as an indication that he is following the tradition of Abraham. Aḥnaf means a person with a distortion in his foot. It is said that this usage of the word is based on al-tafāʾūl form of the word; it is also said that this usage is based on borrowing of the idea of simple deviation.”
When Abraham exculpated from their polytheism and idols by saying: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with God),” he had done so by gradually expressing his inner dislike for a partner of God by saying: “I do not love the setting ones,” and then indicated that worshiping idols was an error by saying: “If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.” After an explicit exculpation in his words: “O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with God),” Abraham returns to the absolute unity in lordship—that is, proving the lordship and worship for He who created the heavens and the earth—and denial of partnership from Him by saying: “Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth…”
‘Turning of the face’ is an indication of exclusive focus towards the Almighty God in worship for the act of veneration and dependency demands that the dependent slave should attach himself to his Lord with full force and determination, and pray to Him and refer to Him in all his activities—and no prayer or attention can happen except by turning the face towards Him. Therefore, ‘turning of the face’ is considered as an indication of worship in the sense of praying to and focusing on God.
Abraham describes his Lord—the Exalted God towards whom he turns his face—by a quality that is incontestably unique: He originated the heavens and the earth. He has used the relative pronoun and the syndetic relative clause (that is, lilladhī (Him Who)) in order to prove the known entity so that no one is left in confusion. Therefore, he said: “to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth”, that is, ‘I have turned in my worship to One to whom every thing is linked in its origination and creation.’ This is what is proven by him and by them above all others.
By adding the word: “ḥanīf—being upright, wholly”, Abraham rejects all others whom they call as God’s partners in the sense that he is turning towards Him away from others whereby denying any partnership for Him. He further affirms that by saying: “and I am not of the polytheists.” So the import of his words staring with “I have turned…” is to prove the servitude towards Almighty God and to deny a partner for Him; this is very similar to the import of the noble creed of Islam: lā ilāha illa ‘llāh—there is no god but God.
The letter lām in lilladhī is for end or goal and denotes the meaning of ila (to); the use of lām in the meaning of ila is common as seen in: …whoever submits himself entirely to Allah… (); and And whoever submits himself wholly to Allah… ().
Exclusively concentrating on the attribute of God as the Originator (al-Fāṭir) as opposed to al-Bār, al-Khāliq and al-Badī‘ (all eventually convey the meaning of creation), shows the preference that Abraham had for the concept of “the religion of fiṭrah, nature.” The Noble Qur’an has repeated this description of the true faith as “the pure faith of Abraham” and “the religion of fiṭrah” in the meaning of the religion whose ideas and teachings emanate from nature of the human being and the manner of his creation that does not ever change. Verily religion is the path adopted in order to reach to the real success, and the real success refers to the desired end that an entity truly and actually seeks based on the way it was created and was equipped with the means of perfection. Never can a human being or anything else from the creation attain success if he seeks it by other than the way he was created or equipped for: he cannot attain success by abandoning food or marriage or total seclusion from the society since he has been equipped otherwise; nor can he succeed in flying like the bird or living under the sea like the fish because he is not equipped for it. So, the true religion is in accordance with the essence of fiṭrah, nature; and never can the holiness of Divinity guide a person (or any other potential creature obliged to follow the religion) to a successful and blessed end without creating him accordingly or without equipping him with the means to reach the goal. Indeed the religion in the eyes of God is Islam: submission to God according to His guidance based on His creation.
وَحَاجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ ۚ قَالَ أَتُحَاجُّونِّي فِي اللَّهِ وَقَدْ هَدَانِ ۚ وَلَا أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ رَبِّي شَيْئًا ۗ وَسِعَ رَبِّي كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا ۗ أَفَلَا تَتَذَكَّرُونَ ٨٠
(6:80) And his people disputed with him He said: “Do you dispute with me respecting Allah? And He has guided me indeed; and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?
(In these series of verses,) the Almighty has divided Abraham’s arguments into two parts: in the first one, he initiated the discussion and argued against them; in the second one, the people initiated the discussion and argued against him when he repudiated their gods. The present verse: (“his people disputed with him”) contains the second of the two parts of arguments.
The Almighty God does not mention the argument that had been presented to him but it is inferred to in His Word where He quotes Abraham: “I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him,” This refers to their argument that it is necessary to worship their idols out of fear. We have mentioned earlier and will discuss further that the impulse in believing in the idols as gods and worshiping them was based on two factors: either fear of their displeasure and power (since they have control over the events of this world) or hope of blessings and success from them. The more compelling of these two in their hearts was the first one, that is, the fear. Why? Because people naturally consider what is in their hands of the material blessings and success as their property that they have acquired by their hard work in the process of their livelihood (in seeking wealth, position and status) or what they have come to own from affluent ancestor or good luck like one who has inherited wealth from a remote ancestor or found a treasure and owned it or became leader of his people in succession to his father.
So, the path of hope has lesser of an impact in pushing one towards worship; even the Muslims, with complete divine teachings at their disposal, are influenced less by promise and good-tidings compared to the impact of threat and warning. Therefore, you see that the Qur’an, while describing the duties of the Prophets, mentions their warnings more than their good-tidings while both are part of their duties and the methods that they use for promoting the faith.
In short, in their argument with Abraham about their gods, his people chose the element of fear and warned him of the gods’ power and displeasure, and advised him to adopt their path and stick to their way in seeking nearness to the gods, and to reject the lordship of the Almighty God and to only believe in Him as they believed in Him just as the final point for everything.
When Abraham realized that their statement can be divided into two parts: i) Rejecting the belief in the lordship of the Almighty God, and ii) Promoting the belief in the lordship of their gods, he disputed with them on both levels but in a way that the first one is dependent on the second.
In the argument that he presented to them about Almighty God, he says: “Do you dispute with me respecting God? And He has guided me indeed;” In other words: ‘I am in a settled situation and have already been guided by my Lord when He made me aware of the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and thereby inspired to me the argument by which I can reject the lordship of others from the idols and the stars, and (made me aware) that I am in need of a Lord who manages my life; so it dawned upon me that He is the Only Lord who has no partner. Since He has guided me towards Himself, I don’t need to heed to your argument and search for god-ship again since search is only relevant when a person is in search; and so search after reaching the goal is futile.’
This meaning comes to mind upon the initial reading of the verse. However, a deeper meaning manifests upon contemplation: Abraham’s words: “and He has guided me indeed;” is an argument by guidance itself; in other words, guidance does not eliminate the need for an argument. This may be explained as follows: ‘Verily, God has guided me by teaching me the argument on falsehood of lordship of others and proving His Lordship. The guidance itself is a proof that He is the Lord and there is no lord other than Him. Guidance to the Lord is part of the actions that reflect divinity. If the Almighty God had not been my Lord, He would not have guided me; instead the one who is the Lord would have provided guidance but God is the One Who guided me, therefore He is my Lord.’
It was not valid for them to say that the one who has taught you what you know and inspired to you the argument is one of our gods because nothing will guide a person to something that is detrimental to it, destroys its name and denies its existence. So, the fact that Abraham was taught to reject the godship of idols cannot be attributed to any of them.
However, what they could have said or what they have actually said is as follows: (The knowledge and inspiration that you have received) is from the act of one of our idols who has done this to you out of his anger and displeasure by distancing you from the belief in our gods, inspiring these arguments to you since he found crookedness in your mind and soul. This is similar to what the people of ‘Ād said to Hūd when he called them towards belief in One God only and argued that it is God only in Whom they should place their hopes and One Whom they should fear, and that their gods can neither benefit them nor harm them. They responded to him by saying that one of our gods has deceived you maliciously as seen in their story narrated by the Almighty: “And, O my people, ask forgiveness of your Lord, then turn to Him, He will send on you clouds pouring down abundance of rain and add strength to your strength, and do not turn back guilty.” They said: “O Hūd! You have not brought to us any clear argument and we are not going to desert our gods for your word, and we are not believers in you. We cannot say aught but that some of our gods have smitten you with evil.” He said: “Surely I call Allah to witness, and do you bear witness too, that I am clear of what you associate (with God) besides Him, therefore scheme against me all together; then give me no respite,” ().
So, the statement of Abraham: “and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases;” rejects the dubious thought (of fearing the idols) and it is, at the same time, a complete argument in rejecting the lordship of their associate-gods.
The summary of his argument is as follows: ‘You are calling me towards the belief in lordship of your associate-gods and the rejection of the lordship of my Lord by threatening me that your associate-gods will inflict harm upon me, and you are warning me by putting doubt in what I have been guided to. But I surely do not fear the gods that you associate with God because all of them are creatures managed (by Him), they don’t possess any benefit nor any harm (for me), and since I don’t fear them, your argument stumbles down and the doubt created by you evaporates.’
(Referring to: “unless my Lord pleases;” he says:) ‘And if I fear them, this fear would not be from the doing of your associate-gods since they are not capable of anything, rather it will be from the doing of my Lord and He would be the One Who pleased that I fear your associate-gods and so I fear them—this fear itself would be another proof of His Lordship and another sign from the signs of His Unity which compels one to exclusively worship Him, it cannot be a proof for the lordship of your associate-gods nor an argument compelling one to worship them.’
‘The proof that the fear could be from my Lord is that: “my Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge;” He knows whatever of good and evil that occurs in His Kingdom which He has created for valid and solid purposes. So, how can it be possible that He knows about something that can benefit or harm but He is silent about it and does not confront it either by preventing it or by allowing it? Thus, if a fear comes into my heart, it is by God’s will and permission as per His sublime status; and this itself would be a way to prove His Lordship and reject the lordship of others. “Will you not then mind” and reflect upon what you can comprehend by your intelligence and be guided to what your pure nature indicates?’
This is explanation of his argument when he says: “I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases; My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge; will you not then mind?”
Based on the above, Abraham’s statement: “I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him,” is like an appendage to the argument: “Do you dispute with me respecting God? And He has guided me indeed.” Nevertheless, at the same time, it is a complete argument in itself to deny the lordship of their associate-gods by not fearing them. Also, his statement that: “unless my Lord pleases,” is an argument of a hypothetical nature: you are arguing for necessity of worshiping the idols out of fear while there is no fear in my heart; and if supposedly there were that fear in my heart, then that would be a proof for my Lord’s godship and not for the lordship of your associate-gods since that fear would be from the will of my Lord. His statement: “My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge,” explains the basis of the supposed fear—that also would be by God’s will since the Creator of the heavens and the earth is not oblivious of whatever happens in His Kingdom, and so nothing happens but by His will as He is the one who manages it and sustains it. His statement: “will you not then mind,” is a question coupled with rebuke, and it is an indication that the argument is based on pure nature.
The exegesis of the Qur’an have a variety of opinions about this verse:
As for the sentence: “Do you dispute with me respecting God? And He has guided me indeed;” most of them have mentioned first of the two explanations that we have given above which, in short, says that Abraham responds to their objection against God’s unity by saying that he is not in need of arguing on this issue since God has guided him and with such a guidance, there is no need for arguments.
However, the apparent context of the verse(does not support this view) since Abraham was in the state of argumentation, and this means that his statement was an argument for monotheism, not that he was not in need of any arguments.
As for the sentence: “and I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases;” they have explained the first part of this sentence almost similarly to what we have said above but they have given a different explanation for the latter part: “unless my Lord pleases.” They have said: ‘It means: I do not fear them except if my Lord overcomes these idols, and gives them life and power so that they can harm and benefit.’ Of course, this ability to harm and benefit becomes a proof of their creation and a proof of the Almighty God’s Unity. In other words, the meaning would be that I do not fear them at all except if my Lord decides to give life to these associate-gods so that they can then harm and benefit—then I will fear them. Nonetheless, the lordship will still belong to God and it will demonstrate that their associate-gods are created entities.
Although this explanation is closer to what we had said above, the attribution of benefit and harm to the associate-gods if they were alive
in their belief some of them are indeed alive such as the angels, gods of various categories, and some of them apparently harm and benefit such as the sun—goes against the divine teachings as the Qur’an clearly states that ultimately benefit and harm comes from none but the Almighty God.
Moreover, describing that as a proof that their associate-gods were created entities would have no impact on the idol-worshipers since they do not deny that idols and gods are creatures of God; and their belief in ‘eternity’ of some of their gods does not conflict, in their views, with them being dependent upon a truly Eternal God.
Another commentator says that the meaning of the latter part of this sentence is that ‘I do not fear their associate-gods and exclude from the general fear a fear that might be created by my Lord to punish me for some of my sins or to inflict harm upon me initially.’ In other words, the exceptional clause (in the latter part of the sentence) is an exception to earlier part denying the fear of the associate-gods, and the words ‘unless my Lord…’ is an exception of fear in general. The meaning would be as follows: ‘I do not fear the gods that you associate with God nor anything else except from the fear that my Lord may inflict upon me initially or as retribution—which I would fear.’ There is no need to elaborate on the arbitrary nature of this argument.
As for His Word: “My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge,” one of them has said that this is Abraham’s praise for his Lord after completion of the argument. It is also said that it is an implied criticism of their idols since neither do they know nor feel anything. This explanation is rejected by the fact that an implied criticism by contrasting with God’s power would be more appropriate to the situation than with His knowledge, and so what was the justification for moving from the power to the knowledge? This objection is also valid for the previous explanation (that is, if Abraham wanted to praise God, it would have been better to describe His power).
Another commentator said that since the Lord exempted Abraham from the distress that could have fallen upon him, he describes His knowledge of the unseen by the sentence: “My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge,” and so He does not do anything but what is beneficial, good and wise. If this explanation were valid, then it would have been better for Abraham to describe His wisdom instead of His knowledge, at the least by combining wisdom with knowledge as it has occurred in many places.
Yet another commentator said that this sentence is like a justification for the exceptional clause and it means that God knew before hand that he could be inflicted with evil because of the idols (example, if He had willed that an idol fall down upon him and crush him or heat of the sun causes illness or kills him). However, describing the power and the wisdom would have been better justification than just talking about knowledge.
One of them said that it means that the knowledge of my Lord covers and encompasses everything, and His will is connected to His eternal and comprehensive knowledge, and His power generates His will; and, therefore, nothing from His creation that they worship can have any impact neither in His attributes nor in His actions that emanate from them, neither by intercession nor by any other means. Thus, that impact and effect could only exist if the Almighty God’s knowledge did not encompass everything. Therefore the intercessor would be in a position to inform the Lord of the preferred action or inaction and that knowledge would have made it possible for the intercessor to harm or benefit someone or to bestow or withdraw something. This commentator further says: “We have derived this meaning of the sentence from the Almighty’s arguments on negation of polytheistic intercession by verses such as: …who is he that can intercede with Him but by His Permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His Knowledge except what He pleases… (). He also said that this is the best of explanations on this verse and it is an example of the interpretation of the Qur’an by the Qur’an itself. This is the summary of his arguments.
The conclusion of his view is that the verse: “My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge,” is an explanation and reason for total rejection of any fear from the gods and others as if Abraham said: “I don’t fear any sort of fear from your gods and other creatures since my Lord knows everything and He will decides by His will and implements it by His power, and therefore He does not need any intercessor to inform Him of what He didn’t know so that the intercessor could have any impact on the Almighty’s actions and intercession.”
You can realize that negating this impact as much as it depends on the Almighty God’s vast knowledge also depends on absolute power and will—as such, the will is an attribute of action and not of person as this interpreter has assumed—so what would be the benefit of the comprehensive knowledge if His power and will is not absolute? This can be seen in his statement in which he explains the knowledge, the will and the power altogether.
In short, this interpretation is not valid on basis of vastness of knowledge alone, it can be conclusive if it were based on absoluteness of power and will as well. But the verse mentions vastness of knowledge only. His statement that the verses on intercession also indicate this meaning is not valid either: those verses actually prove intercession in the sense of intervention in causes by the Almighty God’s permission, they do not negate intercession as surmised by the interpreter and so he has assumed that he is interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an! The attempt to negate the causes from the visible world is an unattainable task; and the Qur’an, from its beginning to its end, speaks about causality and confirms the general principle of cause and effect. This discussion has occurred many times in the previous volumes of this book.
وَكَيْفَ أَخَافُ مَا أَشْرَكْتُمْ وَلَا تَخَافُونَ أَنَّكُمْ أَشْرَكْتُمْ بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا ۚ فَأَيُّ الْفَرِيقَيْنِ أَحَقُّ بِالْأَمْنِ ۖ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ ٨١
(6:81) “And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority; which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?
Then Abraham approaches the idol worshipers with another argument that proves contradiction between their words and their actions. In other words, their action belies their statement which can be summarized as following: ‘You are asking me to fear the idols that should not be feared while you yourselves do not fear the God who should be feared; so I am more secure than you if I disobey you and don’t follow your command.
‘What you are asking me to fear, they don’t need to be feared because there is no evidence to prove that their smaller and bigger idols are independent in harming and benefitting so that one should fear them. As for your lack of fear regarding the one who should be feared, well, you yourselves have assigned partners to the Almighty God in lordship while God has not sent down any proof on which you can rely since creation and origination is from the Almighty God, to Him belongs the Kingdom and to Him belongs the command. If He had taken some of His creation as a partner unto Himself, making incumbent upon us to worship His partner, then it was upon Him, and not anyone else, to clarify the matter to us and show the reality in it. This could have been done by linking it with signs and proofs proving that He has partners in such and such issues, and that also either through revelation or through argument of tangible nature. And none of these exist.’
Based on this explanation, the words: “what you have set up (with Him)…” is contextually linked to the statement: “…for which He has not sent down to you any authority.” However, this clause has come after the interjecting statement about them not fearing God for their polytheism because it was more appropriate at this place as is obvious. And His Word: “which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?” is the conclusion of the argument. All together, this is an argument against them in contradicting themselves by asking Abraham to fear their gods as they were asking him to fear something which should not be feared while they themselves do not fear God who should be actually feared.
It is clear from the above that the clause about idol worshiping: “…for which He has not sent down to you any authority” is just a hypothetical statement as required by the type of argument used in the discussion, it is not a real concept. In other words, it does not prove the possibility that God could allow assigning of partners to Himself who could then be worshiped. No, not all. This clause is similar to our day-to-day conversation when we say: ‘You don’t have any evidence to prove your claim’ in response to a person who threatens us with a superstitious issue claiming that it could benefit or harm us. As followers of tawḥīd, we can present this statement as follows: ‘God has not sent down any evidence.’
Based on analytical logic, the statement in the verse could be presented as qiyās istithnāʾī (that is, a mixed hypothetical syllogism in modus tollen form) in which the first conditional premise has an exceptional clause in order to prove the second premise. For example, we can say:
‘If God had sent down a proof that the idols have power to harm, then your fear of the idols would be valid.
‘God has not sent down any proof. ‘Therefore, your fear of the idols is invalid.’
And it is known that there is no reality in the first premise of this argument. So there is no need to say that the conditional clause: ‘He has not sent down any authority’ is for sarcasm or that it is for indication that this was an essential condition for idol-worshiping similar to the verse: And whoever invokes with Allah another god—he has no proof of this… (), or other such assumptions.
The bā in the sentence: lam yunazzil bihi is in the meaning of ‘with’ or ‘for’. Abraham has described them and himself as “the two parties” and did not say: “You and me” or something similar to it in order to refrain from any provocation of prejudice or egoism, and in order to show that the difference and separation between the two is in fundamental issue and the basic tenet of the faith which cannot be mixed in any way.
الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَلَمْ يَلْبِسُوا إِيمَانَهُمْ بِظُلْمٍ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمُ الْأَمْنُ وَهُمْ مُهْتَدُونَ٨٢
(6:82) “Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.”
While presenting his argument in the previous verse, Abraham had asked them who is worthy of having security: “…which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know?” Then he responded to them since the answer was obvious in which the two parties cannot differ—a response of this nature cannot be delayed by the questioner waiting for the respondent since the respondent does not oppose the questioner in this matter and so there was no fear of rebuttal from him.
The Almighty God has narrated their confession in this matter in the story of the breaking of the idols: He said: “Surely (some doer) has done it; the chief of them is this, therefore ask them, if they can speak.” Then they turned to themselves and said: “Surely you yourselves are the unjust.” Then they were made to hang down their heads (saying): “Certainly you know that they do not speak.” ()
The context shows that this verse is the statement of Abraham. And the view that this could be the statement of his people or that it is the Almighty God’s statement as a judgement between the two opposing parties—the context does not support this view at all.
In any case, the verse contains a strong emphasis (on security for the believers) as reflected in multiple predicates in the nominal clause such as: “they who shall have the security” a nominal clause which is a predicate of “those” and all together they form a nominal clause and are a predicate for “those who believe…” Similarly, the sentence following “those who shall have the security”, that is, “they are those who are aright” is a nominal clause. It concludes that those who believe and have not mixed up their faith with injustice are undoubtedly deserving of security and guidance. There is no doubt in this.
There is no ambiguity in the conclusion of the verse that security and guidance are from fruits of the faith provided it is not mixed with injustice. al-Lubs or al-labs means covering, concealing as al-Rāghib has mentioned in his al-Mufradāt: “The origin of al-labs means concealing.” (In this verse,) it has been used metaphorically in order to show that this “injustice” does not negate the root of faith since it is part of human nature that cannot be totally eradicated, rather injustice conceals it, nullifies its impact and does not let it manifest its right effect.
al-ẓulm (injustice) means moving away from the equilibrium of justice. Although the word has occurred in this verse as an indefinite noun in a negative context implying a general meaning that cannot be associated with faith (īmān) in any shape or form, but the context shows that the injustice that prevents the manifestation of faith and of its desired, good, results is a kind of injustice which has a negative impact upon faith and not the injustice which has no impact upon it.
Indeed al-ẓulm in its first impression in people’s mind refers to the social injustice: violation of the social right by taking away a person’s life or his honor or his property without any legitimate reason. But then the people extended its meaning and named every violation of law or social norm as injustice; rather any sin or disobedience of a legislative order was known as injustice committed by the sinner in regard to himself. Furthermore, disobeying the Almighty God (since He has the legitimate right of obedience) or opposing the religious duties was also known as injustice even if it was done by mistake or out of forgetfulness or ignorance—even though such a violator of duties was not to be punished. In addition to all this, even ignoring an advice and the Divine recommendations unknowingly is considered as being unjust to oneself. This also covers a person who was negligent in following the health guidelines or ignored the effective ways of improving his health. The basis of expanding the meaning of ẓulm was analysis of the cause of violation.
In short, the meaning of ẓulm has been expanded greatly but not all its applications have negative impact on the faith. Those applications of ẓulm that do not cover sins and disobedience of divine orders such as the acts committed by mistake or out of forgetfulness or ignorance—do not have any impact on the faith whose function is to bring a person closer to bliss and true success by the pleasure of the Lord, the Almighty. Such things have no impact on the faith.
So, His Word: “Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice, those are they who shall have the security” means that the faith which gives security—against every sin and disobedience that hinders its effect—is dependent on absence of injustice.
However, herein is the fine point of reflection: the intentional sin (that we discussed fully at the end of 12th (Eng.) volume of this book) is of a variety of degrees depending on the difference in perspectives. An intentional sin may be considered ẓulm in views of one people but not by another.
So, a person who is at the crossroad of monotheism and polytheism, and then believes that the world has a Creator who has brought forth its various components, divided its various parts, and has kept its earth and sky apart, and considers himself and other creatures as being sustained and nurtured by Him, and that the real human life can only be attained by believing in Him and submitting to Him—the obstinate ẓulm for such a person is ascribing partners to God and believing in other gods like the idols, the stars, etc. as shown by Abraham in his previous statement: And how should I fear what you have set up (with Him), while you do not fear that you have set up with Allah that for which He has not sent down to you any authority…
A person who has treaded this path and believes in God alone, when he is confronted with the injustice of the major sins (such as causing distress to the parents, devouring an orphan’s wealth, killing an innocent soul, committing adultery and drinking intoxicants), he knows that the manifestation of good results of his faith depends on refraining from this kind of injustice. God has promised him to forgive the minor sins if he refrains from the major ones: If you avoid the great sins which you are forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins and cause you to enter an honourable place of entering; (). Losing this result of faith is the misfortune of being chastised for these sins even though this will not be the everlasting chastisement like the chastisement of idol-worshiping (shirk), rather it will eventually come to an end either when its term expires or through intercession, etc.
Whoever acquires this level of righteousness and attains a share of awareness of his Lord’s status, he recognizes a higher form of injustice such as doing the disliked (makrūh) actions, neglecting the recommended (mustaḥab) deeds and indulging in the permissible (mubāh) activities. A level higher than this would be the injustice of neglecting the noble traits and spiritual potentials in one’s self. At even a higher level, the barriers in the path of love for God and seeking His nearness are considered as injustice.
So, faith (īmān) at all these various stages gives security to the faithful one and keeps misfortune away from him provided he refrains from that same level of injustice (ẓulm).
Therefore, the term ẓulm in the verse: “those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice” is of general import but its application varies depending on the difference in the level of faith. However, since the context of Abraham’s statement was of debate against the idol-worshipers, the ẓulm here would refer to the ẓulm of polytheism only; and the “security” which follows this faith is the security against the fear of perpetual misery and ever-lasting chastisement. Nonetheless, the message of the verse is independent from its context and explains that security and guidance are indeed results of faith provided it is devoid of all types of injustice that conceal its impact as mentioned earlier.
As for the īmān (faith) mentioned in the verse, it is of a general type and it means the belief in divinity, a belief that can be conditional to what preserves it or what destroys it. When it is contextualized by the words: “and do not mix up their faith with injustice,” it refers to belief in divinity of God and rejection of associate-gods. In the previous verse, Abraham quoted the idol-worshipers’ statement about their associate-gods and belief in them even though they were God’s creation as a statement that has no proof or authorization from God, and that by believing in their associate-gods, they are seeking to avert evil and misery even though they cannot harm nor benefit anyone. Whereas Abraham fears and believes in Him Who is his Creator Who provides guidance and manages the universe with His command and will in all issues because of His comprehensive knowledge. Then he asked the question: which of the two parties is worthier for security and success by belief in the Lord: both parties believe in the Lord but with a major difference—one believes in a Lord based on proof and the other believes in a Lord without any proof, rather the proof is against them.
It is, therefore, clear that the meaning of īmān in “those who believe” is the general belief in divinity which has been further restricted by the words: “and do not mix up their faith with injustice,” thus focusing on the belief in Almighty God which is the true belief. Think and reflect.
So, the following points became clear from the above:
Firstly, the faith in this verse refers to the faith in the Divinity and not the faith in the Creator of the universe—the opponents were not atheists but polytheists.
Secondly, the injustice mentioned in this verse is of general type that can harm the faith and corrupt it by sins. Similarly, the security mentioned in this verse is a general security from misery of disobedience and sins. “To go aright” is also of general nature and it means to be free from misguidance, even though contextually it is applied to the misguidance of polytheism.
Thirdly, the term injustice is also general depending on the different levels of faith (īmān).
While talking about the general meaning of ẓulm, a commentator says:
The security mentioned in the verse is restricted for those who believe and do not mix their faith with injustice. If the general meaning is applied without considering the context of faith, then the meaning will be as following: Those who believe and do not mix their faith with any kind of injustice—neither against themselves nor against their īmān, neither against their physical and psychological actions of religious or worldly nature nor against other creatures from the intelligent beings or non-intelligent beings—such people shall have security against God’s religious punishment for sins and evil deeds as well as from His worldly punishment for not observing the norm in the chain of cause-and-effect (e.g., poverty, diseases, illnesses, etc.). This security will not cover those who are unjust to themselves or others since the unjust would have no security; actually, every unjust person will face punishment even though the Almighty God, out of His vast mercy, will not punish every unjust person for every injustice, rather He will forgive many of the sins of this world; and He will punish whomsoever He wants and forgive whomsoever He wants in the hereafter with the exception of shirk (idol-worshiping).
He further says:
This meaning of the verse is right by itself; and it follows that no responsible person should feel general amnesty from all types of fears (religious and worldly chastisement or legal and natural punishment) except the fear of the awe and majesty of the Almighty that is the hallmark of those who have attained the level of perfection.
He also said:
If the meaning of security is not applied generally then the meaning of the verse would be that those who believe and do not mix their faith with the great injustice (that is, shirk—ascribing partners to God), they shall have security from the religious chastisement (which is related to the principles of faith): perpetuity in the abode of chastisement. In the world, they shall be in the state of fear and hope. He then concludes that the apparent meaning of the verse denotes the general meaning, and has based his argument on the understanding of the Prophet’s companions who said that when the verse was revealed, it created extreme anxiety among the people and they said: “O Messenger of God! Who among us has not been unjust to himself?” He informed them that the injustice (in the verse) refers to shirk. The context of the verse also perhaps indicates this as well as the fact that its subject is īmān, faith. This was the summary of his statement.
There are several problems with this interpretation:
Firstly, what he has tried to prove from the understanding of the companions does not correlate to the meaning that he has presented: what they understood from injustice was equal to sins and disobedience whereas what he has presented is broader than that in meaning.
Secondly, what he has proven as the general injustice (even in cases that are not really in the list of sins), and then judged it to be a correct interpretation is actually far-fetched from the meaning of the verse. The verse intends to say that security and guidance are effects of the faith, provided it is not tainted with injustice that engulfs it and neutralizes its effect. This injustice is indeed the act of disobedience in form of sins. However, what is not considered a sin—for example, inadvertently eating a food that is harmful to the bodily health—obviously does not neutralize the effect of the faith, that is, security and guidance. The verse does not speak about the effects of injustice outside the context of faith as the Almighty said: those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice in which He has made faith (īmān) the subject and tied it to absence of injustice, and made security and guidance as its effects; He did not make injustice the subject so that the verse would be expected to explain its effects. The verse intends to enumerate the effects that emerge from the true faith; whereas injustice—with its very vast subject and its ensuing effects—is not subject of the verse at all. Therefore, his statement that ‘this meaning of the verse is correct by itself’ is positively invalid.
Thirdly, his statement that: ‘And it follows that no responsible person should feel general amnesty from all types of fears’ is a clear confession that there is no application for the general meaning of security, and its necessary conclusion is that his statement loses its validity. What is the benefit of a statement in supporting arguments that has no application?
Fourthly, the meaning that he has finally chosen, that is, injustice refers to the specific injustice of shirk, is not valid either since the wording in the verse is general. Of course, it says that faith should not be tainted with shirk so that it does not obstruct its impact but that is an example of applying a general term to a specific case. But to take a specific meaning from a general word—without any circumstantial or verbal, attached or detached, indication—is not acceptable in the art of eloquence. This is obvious. As for the Prophet’s statement that he has quoted: ‘This refers to shirk’; this does not clearly indicate that shirk is the literal meaning of the verse and its application. We shall discuss this further, God willing, in the section of Traditions.
وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ ۚ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَاتٍ مَنْ نَشَاءُ ۗ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌ ٨٣
(6:83) And that was Our argument which we gave to Abraham against his people; We exalt in ranks whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing:
The use of tilka (that) for indicating something from a distance (instead of “this”) denotes eminence and greatness for the argument since it is a convincing argument based on nature and whose premises are derived from it.
We exalt in ranks whom We please: The term darajāt (translated as “ranks”) was initially used for steps of the ladder and then its usage was expanded and was applied for levels of perfection in moral arena such as knowledge, faith, honour and dignity, etc. God’s act of exalting whomever He pleases in ranks means that He bestows a person with moral perfection and real virtues in qualities that are humanly attainable such as knowledge and piety as well as qualities that are humanly non-attainable (rather they are bestowed by Divine Grace) such as prophethood, messengership, sustenance, etc.
Although the term darajāt has occurred as an indefinite noun, in a general sense, it is nonetheless certain contextually that it refers to the ranks of knowledge and guidance. God has indeed exalted Abraham by guiding him, showing him the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, giving him conviction, decisive arguments and knowledge. While talking about the ranks of knowledge, the Almighty says: Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high rank… ().
The verse ends with the words: “surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing,” in order to emphasize that all this was done by the wisdom of the Almighty and His knowledge just as the arguments that He had given to the Messenger of God as mentioned earlier in this chapter before these arguments were based on His, the Sublime’s Wisdom and Knowledge.
Finally, the change in this verse from the first person to third person (while talking about Abraham) was done in order to please the heart of the Holy Prophet and to confirm the matters discussed in here.
Examining Narrations
- al-Ṣadūq narrates in al-ʿUyūn from Nuʿaym b. ʿAbdillāh b. Tamīm al-Qarashī, may God be pleased with him, said: My father narrated to me from Ḥamdān b. Sulaymān al-nayshābūrī from ʿAli b. Muḥammad b. al-Jahm who said that he attended the gathering of al-Maʾmūn while al-Riḍā was with him. al-Maʾmūn said to him: “O Son of the Messenger of God! Do you believe that the prophets are infallible?” He (Imām) said: “Yes.” Then al-Maʾmūn asked him about some Qur’anic verses on this issue, and among those questions that he asked him was the following: “Can you tell me about the Word of God, to Whom belong Mighty and Majesty, about Abraham: So when the night over-shadowed him, he saw a star; he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ “ al-Riḍā said:
“Verily Abraham found himself among three groups of people: a group that worshiped Venus, a group that worshiped the moon and a group that worshiped the sun; and this was at that time when he came out from the den in which he was hidden. When the night overshadowed him, he saw the Venus and said: ‘This is my Lord’ in order to negate and inquire about it. And when it set down, he said: ‘I do not love the setting ones’ because setting was a quality of the created being and not a quality of the Eternal God. When he saw the moon rising, he said: ‘This is my Lord’ in order to negate and inquire about it. And when it set down, he said: ‘If my Lord had not guided me, I should certainly be of the erring people.’ Then when he saw the sun rising, he said: ‘This is my Lord, this is bigger than the Venus and the moon’ in order to negate and inquire about it, not for accepting. And when it also set, then he addressed all the three groups (worshipers of the Venus, the moon and the sun): ‘O my people! Surely I am clear of what you set up (with God). Surely I have turned my face, being upright, wholly to Him Who originated the heavens and the earth, and I am not of the polytheists.’ Abraham only said what he said in order to show them the falsity of their belief and to prove to them that worship of entities that have the (setting) quality of the Venus, the moon and the sun is not valid, and that worship is valid for their Creator and Creator of the heavens and the earth. Moreover, he had argued against his people by what God, to Whom belong Might and Majesty, has inspired to him as He said: And that was Our argument which we gave to Abraham against his people.” al-Maʾmūn said: “May God keep you long, O son of the Messenger of God!” (ʿUyūn al-akhbār al-Riḍā)
Author’s comment: This narration, with its contents, clearly supports a number of points that we derived from the context of the holy verses. Some other supporting narrations will come below. As for what the narration says about Abraham’s statement: ‘This is my Lord’ that it was actually in order to negate and inquire rather than to inform and agree this is one of the ways of interpretation of the verses that was presented by the Imām in order to reject the argument of al-Maʾmūn, and that does not contradict the other ways of its interpretation, if there are any, as we shall see later on.
The Imām’s statement “setting was a quality of the created being” does not necessarily mean that the argument is based on “setting quality” of the created being as some have mentioned since it is possible that the argument was based on “not loving” and that in turn was based on the phenomenon of setting as a quality of the created being which cannot be an object of love. Think and ponder.
- al-Ṣadūq narrates from his father and Ibn al-Walīd who both narrate from Saʿd from Ibn Burayd from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr from Hishām b. Sālim from Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh who said: “The father of Abraham was an astrologer of Nimrod (Nimrod) b. Kanʿān; and Nimrod did not do anything but after consulting him. So, he looked at the stars, in one of the nights, and in the morning, he reported to Nimrod: ‘I saw last night something surprising!’ Nimrod asked: ‘What was it?’ He said: ‘I saw a child being born in our land in whose hands will be our destruction; and it will not be long before he is conceived.’ Nimrod was surprised by this and asked: ‘Has he already been conceived by a woman?’ He replied: ‘No.’ Part of the knowledge that was given to the astrologer was that the fire will burn that child but he was not told that God will rescue him from it.” The Imām then continued: “The women were then separated from their husbands so that no one could be conceived. However, Abraham’s father met his wife and Abraham was conceived. He thought that this is the child and so he sent for the mid-wives to come and check his wife. The Almighty God made the foetus cling to the back and the midwives said: ‘We don’t see anything in her womb.’ Finally, when Abraham’s mother gave birth, his father decided to take him to Nimrod. His wife pleaded: ‘Don’t take your son to Nimrod so that he may kill him. Let me take him to some cave and place him in it until he dies; don’t be the one to have killed your own son!’ He said: ‘So go.’ She took him to a cave, nursed her (and placed him inside) and put a stone on the cave’s entrance and left him. So, God placed his sustenance in his thumb; whenever he would suck it, milk will come out of it; he would develop in one day like others develop in one week, and he would develop in one week like others develop in one month, and he would grow in one month like others grow up in one year. He stayed as long as God wanted him to stay (in the cave).
“Then his mother told his father: ‘Would you allow me to go to that child and see what happened to him?’ He allowed her. She went to the cave and saw Abraham with his eyes lightening up like two lamps; she picked him, held him to her chest and nursed her. Then she went back to her home. His father inquired about him. She said: ‘I have buried him in the ground.’ She would go outside on the pretext of having work to do and then go to Abraham, hold him, nurse him and returns home. Once he started moving, his mother went to visit him as usual. When she started to leave, he got hold of her dress. She said: ‘What is the matter?’ He said: ‘Take me with you.’ She said: ‘I will have to ask your father.’
“So, Abraham continued to stay in ghaybah, hidden physically, concealing his reality until he made his appearance with truth by God’s command and God manifested His powers in him.” (Kamāl al-dīn wa tamām al-niʿmah)
Author’s comment: (al-Rāwandī) the author of Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ has quoted the same narration from al-Ṣadūq from his father and Ibn al-Walīd taking the chain of narration all the way to Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) who said: “Āzar, the uncle of Abraham, was an astrologer of Nimrod who did not do anything but after consulting him, said: ‘Verily, last night, I saw something strange!’ Nimrod said: ‘What was that?’ He said: ‘I saw a child being born in our land in whose hands will be our destruction.’ So, he separated the men from the women; and Tārikh (Abraham’s father) had (before that) slept with the mother of Abraham who became pregnant…” Then he continued the ḥadīth to the end.
The unity in the chain of narrators of both narrations as well as the content of both (with exception about the father vis-à-vis uncle of Abraham) led the author of al-Biḥār to write: “It seems that what ar- Rāwandī has narrated is the same narration (as that of al-Ṣadūq) but he has changed (the issue of Abraham’s father) in order to bring it in line with the principles of the (Shīʿah) Imāmiyyah.” Then al-Majlisī (the author of al-Biḥār) has explained this narration and other similar narrations that talk about Āzar the idol-worshiper as Abraham’s father as narrations based on al-taqiyyah (dissimulation).
A similar ḥadīth has been narrated by al-Qummī in his al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī in his al-Tafsīr, and it has been narrated in Sunnī sources from Mujāhid by al-Ṭabarī in his Tarīkh and from other sources by al-Thaʿlabī in Qiṣaṣ al-anibyāʾ.
At the least, one thing worth mentioning is that the scholars of ḥadīth and history are unanimous that Abraham, during his early years, was hidden in the cave out of fear that King Nimrod would kill him. Then he came out of the cave and argued against his father and his people about the issue of idols, the Venus, the moon and the sun, and also argued against the King’s claim of divinity. The context of the verses supports this aspect of the narration.
As for the father of Abraham: The historians have written that his name was Tārikh or Tāriḥ, and Āzar was either his title or name of an idol or a positive nickname (‘the helper’) or a negative nickname (‘the lame’) in their language given by Abraham to him.
They have mentioned that this idol-worshiper named by the Qur’an as Abraham’s father against whom he argued was Tārikh, his biological father and his true parent. This is supported by a number of the scholars of ḥadīth and theology from among the Sunnīs but has been rejected by a group of their scholars as well as the Shīʿahs who are almost united against it except for what is seen among some muḥaddithīn who have included such narrations in their books. The best argument that the opponents—that is, those who say that the idol-worshiper Āzar was not Abraham’s father rather he was his uncle or his maternal grandfather—are the narrations that have come from both schools of thought that the ancestors of the Holy Prophet) were all monotheists and that none among them was an idol-worshiper. The debates between the two groups have continued.
Author’s comment: The discussion of this nature—in whatever way it ends up—is outside the scope of the discussion of Qur’anic exegesis. Although the scholars from both groups are in need of presenting their ḥadīth-based proofs and deriving the right conclusion from them but we are not in need of them because the Qur’anic verses, as discussed earlier, prove that Āzar, the idol-worshiper, whom God has mentioned in these verses of sūrah of al-Anʿām was not the real father of Abraham. The narrations that say that Āzar was Abraham’s real father—with all the contradictions that are in the narrations—are against the Holy Book and do not deserve any attention. So, there is no need to explain them away as narrations based on taqiyyah with all the difference among the Sunnīs themselves.
- ʿAli b. Ibraḥīm al-Qummī, under the verse: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth… says: “My father narrated to me from Ishmael b. Marār from Yūnus b. ʿAbdu al-Raḥmān from Hishām from Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) who said:
“He opened for him what is on the earth and those who are on it; what is on the heaven and those who are on it and the angel who carries it; and the throne and those who are on it. He similarly did this for His Messenger and the Chief of the Believers (ʿAli).” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: A similar narration has been quoted in Baṣāʾir al-darajāt by two chains of ʿAbdullāh b. Muskān and Abū Baṣīr from al-Ṣādiq and by a chain of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from al-Bāqir; and al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated it from Zurārah and Abū Baṣīr from al-Ṣādiq and from Zurārah and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qaṣīr from al-Bāqir; and (the Sunnī commentator, al-Suyūṭī, has) narrated it in al-Durr al-manthūr from Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid and al-Suddī from the earlier commentators.
While talking about the Throne (al-ʿArsh), we shall soon discuss the ḥadīth of ʿAli about al-ʿArsh that has been narrated in al-Kāfī. He says in it: “Those who carry the Throne and those who are around it are the divine scholars to whom God bestowed His knowledge.” Then he said: “This is the Kingdom that God shows to His chosen ones, and showed it to His friend (Abraham) as He said: And thus did We show Abraham the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and so that he might be of those who are sure.” This ḥadīth has commentary on other issues that have come in exegesis of ‘showing the Kingdom’ and confirmation of what we said earlier. God willing, the full explanation of this ḥadīth will come in sūrah of al-Aʿrāf (ch.7).
- al-ʿAyyāshī in his tafsīr narrates from Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) who said: “When Abraham saw the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, he saw a person committing adultery so he invoked evil upon him and the person died, then he saw another person (in the same state) and he invoked evil upon him and he also died, and then he saw three persons (in the same state) and invoked evil upon them and they died as well. So, God revealed to him: ‘O Abraham, your prayers are answered, so do not invoke evil upon My servants; if I wished, I would not have created them (in the first place). I have created my servants in three categories: a person who worships Me and does not associate anyone with Me; a person who worships other than Me but He can never escape from Me; and a person who worships other than Me but in his loins is one who will worship only Me (and so I spare him).’ “(al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: This is a mustafīḍah narration, and al-Kulaynī has narrated it in al-Kāfī with a full chain from Abū Baṣīr from the Imām; al-Ṣadūq has narrated it in Ilal al-sharāyi from the Imām; and al-Ṭabrisī has narrated it in al-Iḥtijāj from al-ʿAskarī. (Among Sunnī commentators,) al-Suyūṭī has narrated it in al-Durr al-manthūr from Ibn Marduwayh from ʿAli from the Holy Prophet, and (in another chain) from Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh. al-Bayhaqī has narrated it in Shuʿab al-īmān from the chain of Sharḥ b. Ḥawshab from Maʿādh b. Jabal from the Holy Prophet and from a number of commentators without full chain of narrators.
al-ʿAyyāshī narrates in his al-Tafsīr from Muḥammad b. Muslim from one of the two Imāms (al-Bāqir or al-Ṣādiq) who said about Abraham when he saw the star: “He was looking for his Lord and had not disbelieved; and anyone from the people who thinks like that (that is, is in search of the truth), he is like him.”
- al-Qummī in his al-Tafsīr says that Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) was asked about Abraham’s statement: “This is my Lord.” Did he commit shirk by his statement: “This is my Lord?” He said: “Whoever says that today is a polytheist; but in case of Abraham, there was no shirk since he was seeking his Lord. However, that statement from someone else would be shirk.”
Author’s comment: The opposite of the seeker of the truth is some- one for whom the guidance and clear proof has been established; such a person cannot just suppose something as god that shirk.
- al-ʿAyyāshī in his al-Tafsīr narrates from Ḥujr who said that al-ʿAlāʾ b. Sayyābah sent someone with a question to Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) about Abraham’s statement: ‘This is my Lord’: “If someone says this now, he is considered by us as a polytheist.” He said: “It was not shirk in case of Abraham since he was in search of his Lord. From other than him, it would be shirk.”
- He (al-ʿAyyāshī) also narrates from Muḥammad b. Ḥumrān who asked Abū ʿAbdillāh (al-Ṣādiq) concerning God’s statement about what Abraham said: “This is my Lord.” He said: “He didn’t reach to anything (of shirk); he intended something other than what he said.” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: Perhaps the Imām meant that by saying: “This is my Lord” Abraham did not mean anything more than the word itself and did not have any other meaning beyond that. In other words, he said it as a hypothetical statement or accepted the premises in order to prove its falsity as mentioned earlier (in the commentary).
- al-Suyūṭī in al-Durr al-manthūr under verse: Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice, says that Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Dārquṭnī in al-Afrād, Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh have quoted from ʿAbdullāh b. Masʿūd who said: “When the verse: Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice, was revealed, it distressed the people and they said: ‘O Messenger of God! Who among us has not being unjust to himself?’ He said: ‘It is not what you think; have you not heard the virtuous servant saying that: Verily, polytheism (shirk) is the great injustice? It is indeed shirk.’
Author’s comment: ‘The virtuous servant’ refers to Luqmān as God has quoted him in sūrah of Luqmān (ch.31). This ḥadīth shows that the sūrah of al-Anʿām was revealed after the sūrah of Luqmān. We have mentioned earlier that explaining the term ‘injustice’ as shirk is actually applying its most appropriate example and that shirk is an unforgiveable sin unlike any other sin whatever it may be. The proof for what we have said will come in the narrations (below).
- al-Suyūṭī says that Aḥmad, al-Ṭabarānī, Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn Marduwayh and al-Bayhaqī in Shuʿab al-īmān have narrated from Jarīr b. ʿAbdillāh who said: “We departed with the Messenger God from Medina when a rider appeared towards us. When he came close, he greeted us. The Holy Prophet said to him: “From where do you come?” He said: “I am coming from my family, my children and my tribe seeking the Messenger of God.” He (the Prophet) said: “You have found him.” The person said: “Teach me what is the faith (īmān)?” The Holy Prophet said: “Testify that there is no god but God and that Muḥammad is the Messenger of God; and establish the prayer, give the charity, fast in Ramaḍān and do the pilgrimage of (God’s) House.” He said: “I accept.”
Then his camel’s forelimb went into the rats’ hole and he fell over with his head down and died. The Messenger of God said: “He is of those who did a little (as far as deeds are concerned) but will be rewarded abundantly; he is from those whom God had described as: “Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice—they are those who shall have security and they are those who go aright.” I saw wide eyed houris putting a fruit of Paradise into his mouth, and so I came to know that the person had died hungry.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
Author’s comment: al-Suyūṭī has also narrated this from al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim from Ibn ʿAbbās a similar narration; al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated the same in his al-Tafsīr from Jābir al-Juʿfī from an unnamed person from the Holy Prophet.
- al-Suyūṭī also says that ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd has narrated from Abraham al-Taymī that a person asked the Holy Prophet about this verse but he was silent till a person came and accepted Islam and didn’t live long before he joined a battle in which he was martyred. The Holy Prophet said: “This person is among: those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice.”
- al-Suyūṭī says that al-Fāriyābī, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abu al-Shaykh, al-Ḥākim (who has even authenticated the narration) and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from ʿAli b. Abī Ṭālib about the verse: “ those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice” who said: “This verse was revealed about Abraham and his companions especially, and it is not for this ummah.”
Author’s comment: This narration does not conform to the general principles derived from the Qur’an and the sunnah. Verily the verse does not contain any special command specific to one community and not the other like the practical laws legislated for one era and not the other. As for the faith (īmān) with its effects on different levels as well as the injustice (ẓulm) on different levels (affecting the īmān negatively), this is an issue bestowed in the human nature with no difference in time or nations.
Some commentators have tried to explain this ḥadīth by saying that perhaps he meant that God has specifically granted to Abraham and his people a security against the general chastisement of the hereafter and not just the security against perpetuity in it. Probably the reason for this exclusivity—if it were valid—is that the Almighty God did not impose upon them anything but monotheism leaving the matters of laws to their strict civil system in matters of personal and behavioral laws.
Researchers have discovered the Code of Hammurabi, the righteous king who lived during Abraham’s era and whom he welcomed and took one-tenth tax from him as it has been mentioned in the Book of Genesis (in the Old Testament); and so the Code is similar to the Torah in most of its laws. As for God introducing the ritual ḥajj through Abraham, that was only for the people among the descendants of his son Ishmael and not among his Chaldean people. As for this ummah: its followers of tawḥīd will still be punished for sins according to their level of gravity since they were charged with a complete code of law and will be accountable for its implementation. Here ends the commentator’s argument.
There is obvious arbitrariness in his argument. We have already mentioned earlier that King Hammurabi lived in the beginning of the year 1700 BC while Abraham lived approximately in the beginning of 2000 BC.
Hammurabi was a good king in his own religion, just to his people, practically committed to the laws that he legislated, diligently imposed the laws in his domain in the best way, and, as it is said, they were the earliest civil laws—in spite of all this, he was an idol-worshiper and sought help from the gods of idol-worshipers as he himself wrote after completing his Code as seen in the tablet discovered in the ruins of Babylon. Those gods he mentioned in his statement at the end of the Code, he thanked them for granting him the great kingdom and made him successful in spreading justice and laying down the laws. The gods that he prayed for their help in preserving the laws from distortion are Mīrudākh, the god of gods and god of law and justice, Zamāmā and Ishtār, the gods of war, Shāmāsh, the god who maintains justice in the sky and the earth, Sīn, the god of the heavens, Ḥādād, the god of fertility, Nīrghāl, the god of victory, Bal, the god of destiny, and other gods like Biyltīs, Nino, Sājīlā, etc.
Moreover, what the commentator has said that God did not impose on Abraham’s people anything but monotheism leaving the matters of laws to their strict civil system is rejected by the Qur’anic narrations which talks about Abraham’s prayer (as seen in his prayers in the sūrah of Ibraḥīm (ch.14)), it mentions how God revealed to him the doing of good deeds and giving charity (as seen in the sūrah of al-Anbiyā (ch.21)), and legislated ḥajj and permissibility of cattle’s meat (as seen in the sūrah of al-Ḥajj (ch.22)). Part of his sharīʿah was also the disassociation with the idol-worshipers (as seen in the sūrah of al-Mumtaḥinah (ch.60)), and he used to prohibit every kind of injustice that was against human nature (as seen in the Sūrah al-Anʿām (ch.6), etc.). Also, part of Abraham’s sharīʿah was physical purity (as seen in the sūrah of al-Ḥajj (ch.22)), and there are narrations that he introduced the ḥanīfiyyah tradition which consists of ten things: five related to the head and five related to the body, including circumcision. He used to greet by the greeting of peace (as seen in the Sūrah al-Hūd (ch.11) and Sūrah Maryam (ch.19)).
God, the Sublime, has indeed said that: …the faith of your father, Abraham… () and: Say: “Nay! (We follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright one…” (), whereby He has described Islam, with its doctrines and practices, as the religion of Abraham. Although this does not mean that Islam with its elaborate code of law was introduced from days of Abraham—rather the reality is contrary to that as mentioned in: 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 proves that God’s laws are based on a principle or general principles that emanate from the nature: whatever conforms to it is subject to commandments and whatever does not conform to it is subject of prohibitions. After mentioning the arguments against shirk, and some general commandments and prohibitions, the Almighty God addresses His Prophet as follows: Say: “Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the straight path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Abraham the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists.” ()
If what the above-mentioned commentator has said was the fact that God did not lay down any code of law for Abraham and his people, rather He left them to the prevailing civil laws of the time, that is, the Code of Hammurabi—then that Code would be endorsed and valid in God’s eyes, and would be part of Abraham’s religion, and so shall the Islamic faith (that has been described in the Qur’an as the pure religion of Abraham) (be linked to the Code of the idol-worshiping king) thus making it one of the Divine faiths with a revealed scripture! The undeniable truth is that it was the Divine revelation that provided the past prophets and their peoples with the general principles for social life in this world and (success) in the hereafter (such as the acts of worship), and the general norms (of good and evil) that would guide the sensible human being towards forming a good society and refraining from injustice, extravagance and supporting the tyrants, etc; and then enjoin them to be members of the society equipped with such guidance and to call for acquiring good and piety, and refraining from evil, indecency and mischief irrespective of the socio-political nature of those societies whether they were governed by oppression of the unjust and tyrants or by benevolence of the just rulers and their organized political systems.
However, no elaborate code of laws was sent down before the advent of Islam except in the Torah which had some laws similar to what was in the Code of Hammurabi. It is true that the Torah was sent down by God to Moses and it was preserved by the Israelites but it is also a fact that they lost it during the conquest of (the Babylonian King) Nebuchadnezzar II (Bakhtnaṣr) who annihilated them, destroyed their Temple and only a few of them survived who were enslaved and taken to Babylon and lived there until (the Persian) King Cyrus (Kūrush) conquered Babylon, emancipated the Israelites and allowed them to return to Jerusalem. Ezra, the High Priest, was allowed to write the Torah for them after its copies had perished and its contents were forgotten, and they had become used to the Babylonian laws that were prevalent among the Chaldeans.
With such a history (of losing the Torah and the rewriting of it in an environment influenced by Babylonian laws) how can it be said that God has endorsed whatever of Hammurabian Code is found in the Jewish laws? The Qur’an confirms only some of what is in the present Torah. Nonetheless, one cannot deny that some man-made laws (established outside the Divine revelation) contain some useful and good laws.
- al-Kulaynī narrates in al-Kāfī through his chain of narrators from Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh who explained the verse: those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice, as shirk, polytheism.
- al-Kulaynī narrates through another chain of narrators from Abū Baṣīr from him (al-Ṣādiq) who explained the verse (and the term ‘injustice’) as “doubt.” (al-Kāfī)
Author’s comment: al-ʿAyyāshī has also narrated this ḥadīth from Abū Baṣīr from him.
- al-ʿAyyāshī in his al-Tafsīr narrates from Abū Baṣīr from Abū ʿAbdillāh that he said: “I asked him about the Word of God: those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice. He said: ‘We seek God’s protection, O Abū Baṣīr, from being among those who have mixed up their faith with injustice.’ Then he said: ‘Those are the Khawārij (Khārijites) and their companions.’”
- al-ʿAyyāshī narrates from Jacob b. Shuʿayb from Abū ʿAbdillāh about His’s Word: those who believe and do not mix up their faith with injustice. He said: “It means misguidance and whatever is beyond it.” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: It seems that the meaning of misguidance in this narration is shirk which is the source of all the injustice and the sins and disobedience beyond it. Or it could refer to the lowest level of injustice which manifest in form of sins, and beyond it would be shirk which is an intensified form of misguidance—after all, all sins are misguidance.
These narrations, as you can see, give multifarious meanings in explaining the term ẓulm (injustice) in the verse: idol-worshiping, doubt, and the ideas of the Khawārij; and some narrations have explained it as the love for the enemies of Ahl al-Bayt. All this proves what we had said earlier that the ẓulm mentioned in the verse is of a general meaning and it applies to its various levels based on the level of understanding.
Discourse
The discussion “The Story of Abraham and His Personality” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
al-Qisṭās (see ) means balance, scale; it is an Arabicized word of Roman origin. al-Istabraq (see ) means brocade is an Arabicized word of Persian origin. (Trans.) ↩︎
This refers to Rāshīd Riḍā in al-Manār, vol.7, p.466. (Trans.) ↩︎
See Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīh al-ghayb, vol.13 (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth, 1420 AH) p.42–43. (Trans.) ↩︎
See al-Mīzān (Eng. transl.) vol.1. Misguidance when attributed to the Almighty is better explained by the term “abandonment, khidhlān” (Trans.). ↩︎
Adding ‘sustenance’ alongside prophethood and messengership might seem odd but it refers to the Islamic belief of Divine Decree about the means and maximum limit of sustenance (rizq)—that is entirely at God’s discretion and not fully result of the human exertions. (Trans.) ↩︎
If a khabar wāḥid has multiple narrators, it is known as mustafīḍah narration and its status is elevated closer to that of the mutawātir ḥadīth. (Trans.) ↩︎
al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī was a Ḥanafī Sūfī scholar, not be confused with al-Tirmidhī, the famous compiler of Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī, one of the six canonical compilations of ḥadīth among the Sunnīs. (Trans.) ↩︎