Verses 138–154

Chapter 7: Al-Aʿrāf (Elevations) · Printed edition: Volume 16, pp. 61–119

وَ جاوَزْنا بِبَنِي إِسْرائِيلَ الْبَحْرَ فَأَتَوْا عَلى‏ قَوْمٍ يَعْكُفُونَ عَلى‏ أَصْنامٍ لَهُمْ قالُوا يا مُوسَى اجْعَلْ لَنا إِلهاً كَما لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ قالَ إِنَّكُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ ١٣٨ إِنَّ هؤُلاءِ مُتَبَّرٌ ما هُمْ فِيهِ وَ باطِلٌ ما كانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٣٩ قالَ أَ غَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْغِيكُمْ إِلهاً وَ هُوَ فَضَّلَكُمْ عَلَى الْعالَمِينَ ١٤٠ وَ إِذْ أَنْجَيْناكُمْ مِنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذابِ يُقَتِّلُونَ أَبْناءَكُمْ وَ يَسْتَحْيُونَ نِساءَكُمْ وَ فِي ذلِكُمْ بَلاءٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ ١٤١ وَ واعَدْنا مُوسى‏ ثَلاثِينَ لَيْلَةً وَ أَتْمَمْناها بِعَشْرٍ فَتَمَّ مِيقاتُ رَبِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً وَ قالَ مُوسى‏ لِأَخِيهِ هارُونَ اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَ أَصْلِحْ وَ لا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ ١٤٢ وَ لَمَّا جاءَ مُوسى‏ لِمِيقاتِنا وَ كَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قالَ لَنْ تَرانِي وَ لكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَ خَرَّ مُوسى‏ صَعِقاً فَلَمَّا أَفاقَ قالَ سُبْحانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَ أَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ١٤٣ قالَ يا مُوسى‏ إِنِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسالاتِي وَ بِكَلامِي فَخُذْ ما آتَيْتُكَ وَ كُنْ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ ١٤٤ وَ كَتَبْنا لَهُ فِي الْأَلْواحِ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ مَوْعِظَةً وَ تَفْصِيلاً لِكُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ فَخُذْها بِقُوَّةٍ وَ أْمُرْ قَوْمَكَ يَأْخُذُوا بِأَحْسَنِها سَأُرِيكُمْ دارَ الْفاسِقِينَ ١٤٥ سَأَصْرِفُ عَنْ آياتِيَ الَّذِينَ يَتَكَبَّرُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَ إِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لا يُؤْمِنُوا بِها وَ إِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الرُّشْدِ لا يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلاً وَ إِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الغَيِّ يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلاً ذلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا بِآياتِنا وَ كانُوا عَنْها غافِلِينَ ١٤٦ وَ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآياتِنا وَ لِقاءِ الْآخِرَةِ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمالُهُمْ هَلْ يُجْزَوْنَ إِلاَّ ما كانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٤٧ وَ اتَّخَذَ قَوْمُ مُوسى‏ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ مِنْ حُلِيِّهِمْ عِجْلاً جَسَداً لَهُ خُوارٌ أَ لَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّهُ لا يُكَلِّمُهُمْ وَ لا يَهْدِيهِمْ سَبِيلاً اتَّخَذُوهُ وَ كانُوا ظالِمِينَ ١٤٨ وَ لَمَّا سُقِطَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ وَ رَأَوْا أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ ضَلُّوا قالُوا لَئِنْ لَمْ يَرْحَمْنا رَبُّنا وَ يَغْفِرْ لَنا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخاسِرِينَ ١٤٩ وَ لَمَّا رَجَعَ مُوسى‏ إِلى‏ قَوْمِهِ غَضْبانَ أَسِفاً قالَ بِئْسَما خَلَفْتُمُونِي مِنْ بَعْدِي أَ عَجِلْتُمْ أَمْرَ رَبِّكُمْ وَ أَلْقَى الْأَلْواحَ وَ أَخَذَ بِرَأْسِ أَخِيهِ يَجُرُّهُ إِلَيْهِ قالَ ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَ كادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي فَلا تُشْمِتْ بِيَ الْأَعْداءَ وَ لا تَجْعَلْنِي مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٥٠ قالَ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِي وَ لِأَخِي وَ أَدْخِلْنا فِي رَحْمَتِكَ وَ أَنْتَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ ١٥١ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ وَ ذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَياةِ الدُّنْيا وَ كَذلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُفْتَرِينَ ١٥٢ وَ الَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السَّيِّئاتِ ثُمَّ تابُوا مِنْ بَعْدِها وَ آمَنُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِنْ بَعْدِها لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ١٥٣ وَ لَمَّا سَكَتَ عَنْ مُوسَى الْغَضَبُ أَخَذَ الْأَلْواحَ وَ فِي نُسْخَتِها هُدىً وَ رَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ هُمْ لِرَبِّهِمْ يَرْهَبُونَ ١٥٤

138. We carried the Children of Israel across the sea, whereat they came upon a people cleaving to certain idols that they had. They said, “O Moses, make for us a god like they have gods.” He said, “You are indeed an ignorant lot.
139. What they are [engaged] in is indeed bound to perish, and what they have been doing shall come to naught.”
140. He said, “Shall I find you a god other than Allah, while He has graced you over all the nations?”
141. And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s clan who inflicted on you a terrible torment, slaughtering your sons and sparing your women, and there was a great test in that from your Lord.
142. And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights, and completed them with ten [more]; thus the tryst of his Lord was completed in forty nights. And Moses said to Aaron, his brother, “Be my successor among my people, and set things right and do not follow the way of the agents of corruption.”
143. When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You!” He said, “You shall never see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.” So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it, and Moses fell down swooning. And when he recovered, he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence, and I am the first of the believers.”
144. He said, “O Moses, I have chosen you over the people with My messages and My speech. So take what I give you, and be among the grateful.”
145. And We wrote for him in the Tablets from all things some advice and some elaboration of all things, [and We said], “So hold on to them with power, and bid your people to hold on to the best of [what is in] them. Soon I shall show you the abode of the transgressors.
146. Soon I shall turn away from My signs those who are unjustly proud in the earth, and [even] though they should see every sign, they will not believe in it, and if they see the way of rectitude they will not take it as [their] way, and if they see the way of error they will take it as [their] way. That is because they deny Our signs and are oblivious to them.”
147. Those who deny Our signs and the encounter of the Hereafter, their works have failed. Shall they be requited except for what they used to do?
148. The people of Moses took up in his absence a calf [cast] from their ornaments—a body that gave out a lowing sound. Did they not regard that it did not speak to them, nor did it guide them to any way? They took it up [for worship] and they were wrongdoers.
149. But when they became remorseful and realized they had gone astray, they said, “Should our Lord have no mercy on us, and forgive us, we will be surely among the losers.”
150. And when Moses returned to his people, angry and indignant, he said, “Evil have you substituted me in my absence! Did you lose patience with your Lord’s decree?” He threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by the head, pulling him towards himself. He said, “Son of my mother, indeed this people thought me to be weak, and they were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies gloat over me, and do not take me with the wrongdoing lot.”
151. He said, “My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy, for You are the most merciful of the merciful.
152. Indeed those who took up the calf [for worship] shall be overtaken by their Lord’s wrath and abasement in the life of the world.” Thus do We requite the fabricators [of lies].
153. Yet [to] those who commit misdeeds but repent after that and believe—indeed, after that, your Lord shall surely be All-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.
154. And when Moses’ indignation abated, he picked up the Tablets whose inscriptions contained guidance and mercy for those who are in awe of their Lord.

Introduction

These verses discuss the stories of the Children of Israel after they were delivered from their bondage under Pharaoh’s clan. The verses pursue the overall theme of the chapter up to here, which is the idea that whenever the religious call was made to a nation, they were to be found closer to disbelief than belief, and the majority of them broke God’s covenant. Hence, God would bless the believers with His special grace, and would penalize the disbelievers with His excruciating punishment.

These verses cover the following parts of their story:

1. The Children of Israel were given passage across the sea.
2. They asked Moses to make an idol for them to worship.
3. They worshiped the calf when Moses had gone to the tryst of his Lord.
4. The Torah was revealed to Moses.

Commentary

وَجَاوَزْنَا بِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ الْبَحْرَ فَأَتَوْا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ يَعْكُفُونَ عَلَىٰ أَصْنَامٍ لَهُمْ ۚ قَالُوا يَا مُوسَى اجْعَلْ لَنَا إِلَٰهًا كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ ۚ قَالَ إِنَّكُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ ١٣٨

(7:138) We carried the Children of Israel across the sea, whereat they came upon a people cleaving (yaʿkufūna, from ʿukūf) to certain idols that they had. They said, “O Moses, make for us a god like they have gods.” He said, “You are indeed an ignorant lot.”

According to al-Mufradāt of al-Rāghib, ʿukūf is “to turn to something and adhere to it out of reverence.”

… make for us a god like they have gods…: The implied meaning of this comparison is: “Make for us a god like they have gods made for them” [where the last part is omitted].

The Children of Israel followed the religion of their ancestor Abraham. Some of their previous prophets were Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, all of whom propagated monotheism. Their religion subscribed to God as the sole deity to be worshiped, and believed Him to be transcendent, incorporeal, and free from having physical properties like shape and size. Nevertheless, the Israelites had materialistic and empiricist inclinations, and lived on the basis of sense perceptions, as we can infer from their stories. They did not pay any attention to what lies beyond sensory perceptions, except for some formalities, but not as a genuine or authentic belief. Moreover, they lived for several years under the rule of Egyptians who were idol-worshipers. That impressed itself on their souls, even though their racial pride maintained their ancestral religion for them to some extent.

Most of them viewed God as a physical being among other physical beings. That was their impression of God. We can even observe this in the extant Torah today, which presents us with a very anthropomorphic view of the divine essence. Whenever Moses tried to describe the transcendent nature of the Truth to them in a way that their minds could grasp, they would divert it to shapes and figures that were fabrications of their imagination. For this reason, when they saw in their way a community that subscribed to their idols, they desired to have the like of that for themselves. They asked Moses to make for them a god, just like the gods that they have and adhere to.

Moses found no alternative to describing God’s oneness to them other than lowering the discussion to the level of their limited understanding. First he blamed them for their ignorance about the status of their Lord, for it should have been clear to them that the way of the idol-worshipers is wrong and fruitless. Second, he “defined” God for them through describing His attributes. This is how he clarified that their Lord cannot be represented by an idol or defined by an image. We shall see this below.

إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ مُتَبَّرٌ مَا هُمْ فِيهِ وَبَاطِلٌ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٣٩

(7:139) “What they are [engaged] in is indeed bound to perish (mutabbar), and what they have been doing shall come to naught.”

Mutabbar is derived from tabār, which means halāk (destruction, death, perishing). The verse literally says, “What they are in,” which means the path and tradition that they pursue, which was idol-worship. What they have been doing refers to their ritual practices. The meaning is: The path of these idol-worshipers is doomed to damnation, and their religious deeds are void. Therefore, it is not befitting of an intelligent person to incline toward it. Instead, one should serve God, which leads one to eternal happiness and permanent good.

قَالَ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْغِيكُمْ إِلَٰهًا وَهُوَ فَضَّلَكُمْ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ ١٤٠

(7:140) He said, “Shall I find you (abghīkum) a god other than Allah, while He has graced you over all the nations?”

Abghīkum means “to seek, to procure.” Here Moses introduces and describes their Lord to them.

… Shall I find you a god other than Allah…: What he means is: “Any god that I might make or assign for you would be other than Allah, but the One that you must worship is Allah, for He is your Lord.” Moses effectively refers to God’s Lordship by describing Him as: He has graced you over all the nations. Their conversation can be reconstructed and elaborated as follows:

The Israelites: Make for us a god like they have gods ().

Moses: How can I procure for you a manufactured lord, for that would be other than your real Lord: Allah. The worship of any other lord would be void and doomed to perish.

The Israelites: How can we worship Him when we do not see Him, and have no way of seeing Him? (This is one of the principal arguments of idol-worshipers.)

Moses: Worship Him based on what you know of His attributes. He is the One Who has preferred you over all nations through His manifest signs, His true religion, and His deliverance of you from Pharaoh and his misdeeds.

As we can see, this verse presents a lofty truth to weak intellects through subtle expressions and concise arguments.

وَإِذْ أَنْجَيْنَاكُمْ مِنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ ۖ يُقَتِّلُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ ۚ وَفِي ذَٰلِكُمْ بَلَاءٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ ١٤١

(7:141) And when We delivered you from Pharaoh’s clan who inflicted on you (yasūmūnakum) a terrible torment, slaughtering (yuqattilūna, from taqtīl) your sons and sparing (yastaḥyūna, from istiḥyāʾ) your women, and there was a great test in that (dhālikum) from your Lord.

The verb sāma yasūmu means “imposing something on someone in a humiliating and disgraceful way.” Taqtīl means “killing abundantly.” We saw the word istiḥyāʾ before [in verse ]. It means sparing their women and letting them live in order to serve them as maids. The demonstrative pronoun dhālikum (that) apparently refers to the above mentioned tortures of Pharaoh’s clan against the Children of Israel.

Some exegetes have suggested that the verse is addressed to the Jews who were living at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an. God reminds them of the great favor that He showed their forefathers at the time of Pharaoh. However, it is more consistent with the context and flow of the verses to say that the verse is addressed to the very companions of Moses who lived at his time. It is addressed to them as an expression of surprise, for they so quickly forgot God’s great blessing upon them, whereby He rescued them from such a dreadful calamity. We shall see another similar expression of surprise—albeit in the third person—below, where God says: Did they not regard that it did not speak to them, nor did it guide them to any way? ().

وَوَاعَدْنَا مُوسَىٰ ثَلَاثِينَ لَيْلَةً وَأَتْمَمْنَاهَا بِعَشْرٍ فَتَمَّ مِيقَاتُ رَبِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً ۚ وَقَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِأَخِيهِ هَارُونَ اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَأَصْلِحْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ ١٤٢

(7:142) And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights, and completed them with ten [more]; thus the tryst (mīqāt) of his Lord was completed in forty nights. And Moses said to Aaron, his brother, “Be my successor among my people, and set things right and do not follow the way of the agents of corruption.”

Mīqāt is close in meaning to waqt (time). Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

The difference between mīqāt and waqt is that mīqāt is a specific time that is assigned for some activity, but waqt is the general time and duration of something. That is why the word mīqāt is used for the hajj. Mawāqīt al-ḥajj [extracted from verse ] are the places that are assigned for the pilgrims to enter the state of iḥrām.

The verse describes God’s appointment with Moses in two stages: it was initially set for thirty nights, then that was extended by another ten nights. The verse then concludes that they added up to forty. Elsewhere we read: And when We made an appointment with Moses for forty nights (), where the verse only refers to the subtotal of both appointments. In other words, the verse in Sūrah al-Baqarah [] states that the entire forty nights were appointed, and the verse in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf [] clarifies that the total mentioned in the other verse consisted of two appointments.

The meaning is: God gave Moses an appointment of thirty nights to draw him near to Himself and speak to him. Then He gave him another appointment of ten nights as a complement to the initial appointment. Thus the tryst of his Lord was completed in forty nights.

The verse mentions “nights” instead of “days” even though Moses also spent the days of that period on Mount Ṭūr. Besides, it is more common to use days when referring to the appointed times of activities. In this case, however, night is more pertinent, because the tryst was to draw closer to God, indulge in His remembrance, and engage in private conversation with Him. The night is more suitable for this purpose because that is when the senses are less distracted, and the soul is more prepared for intimacy. One of the blessings of this nocturnal tryst was the revelation of the Torah. The same idea can be found in these verses: O you wrapped up in your mantle! Stand vigil through the night, except a little… Indeed soon We shall cast on you a weighty word. Indeed the watch of the night is firmer in tread and more upright in respect to speech, for indeed during the day you have drawn-out engagements ().

… And Moses said to Aaron, his brother, “Be my successor among my people…”: Moses said this when he was departing them for his tryst. We can infer this from the phrase, Be my successor among my people, because succession only makes sense in the absence of the original person.

The Children of Israel are called my people and his people in several places in this chapter. Their ascription to Moses is in harmony with the other similar stories in this chapter, where Prophets Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ and others called their people: O my people. Otherwise, they are referred to as the Children of Israel in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā.

… and set things right and do not follow the way of the agents of corruption”: Moses commanded his brother to set things right, and to not follow the path of those who make mischief. Aaron was a divine prophet and an infallible messenger. He would never sin, nor follow the chiefs of corruption in religious matters. Moses knew his this better than anyone. Therefore, what is meant here cannot be a prohibition against religious disbelief and disobedience. Instead, it pertains to governmental and managerial affairs. Moses advised his brother to not follow the counsel and approval of the corrupt individuals among his people throughout the term of his succession, when Moses is absent. We can infer this from the phrase, and set things right, which shows that the next part of his advice—and do not follow the way of the agents of corruption—is about conducting their social affairs properly. He should not govern them according to the way of the agents of corruption. He should not make decisions based on what they advise him as the appropriate thing to do.

This statement shows that there were a group of rebels and trouble-makers among Moses’ people who used to cause mischief, sabotage his plans, and anticipate calamities to betide him. That is why Moses warned his brother against following their way, lest they may disturb his affairs, and conjure plots against him. While Moses had suffered all those troubles and tribulations to establish order and unity among them, these people wanted to disunite the Children of Israel and throw them into disarray.

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنْظُرْ إِلَيْكَ ۚ قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي وَلَٰكِنِ انْظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي ۚ فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا ۚ فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ١٤٣

(7:143) When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You!” He said, “You shall never see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.” So when his Lord disclosed (tajallá, from tajallī) Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it (dakkan), and Moses fell down (kharra, from khurūr) swooning (ṣaʿiqan, from ṣaʿqah). And when he recovered (afāqa, from ifāqah), he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence, and I am the first of the believers.”

Tajallī (manifestation, epiphany) is “to take on jalāʾ (appearance, expression, disclosure).” Dakk means “pounding something, hitting something hard.” What is meant by dakk (pounding, crushing) in this verse is madkūk (pounded, crushed, levelled). Khurūr means “to fall, to collapse.” There are two meanings for ṣaʿqah: (1) dying; (2) fainting, losing consciousness and sensory perception. Ifāqah means regaining consciousness and sensory perception. After fainting, when the person recovers their state of sound consciousness and balanced intelligence, it is said that “the person afāqa from their swoon.” Based on its apparent structure, the verse can be interpreted as follows:

When Moses arrived at Our tryst…: That was the tryst that We appointed for him.

… and his Lord spoke to him…: God spoke His words to Moses.

… he said…: Moses said.

Key Debate: Seeing God →

… “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me (arinī), that I may look at You (anẓur ilayka)”…: Moses asked God to show Himself to him, so that he may look at Him. There are three stages here in sequence:

1. First one must be given the ability, the means and the establishments (called tamkīn or tamakkun) to look at something.
2. Then one can look at it (called naẓar) in order to see it.
3. Then one would see it (called ruʾyah).

Therefore, what he meant was: Enable me to look at you (anẓuru ilayka), so that by looking at you I may see you (arāka).

… He said…: God said to Moses.

… “You shall never (lan) see Me…”: The negational particle lan here implies “never.”

… But look at the mountain (al-jabal)…: The definite article al- in al-jabal (“the” in the mountain) shows that there was a mountain right there before Moses.

… if it abides in its place, then you will see Me”…: You can not bear to see Me. Instead, look at the mountain. I will manifest Myself to it; if it stays where it is and can endure My vision, then you would know that you too are capable of looking at Me and seeing Me.

… So when his Lord disclosed Himself…: When God manifested.

… to the mountain, He crumbled it…: Through His appearance and manifestation, God demolished the mountain into small pieces and particles in the air, or crumpled it onto the ground.

… and Moses fell down swooning…: He fell down dead or unconscious, being shocked by that scene.

… And when he recovered, he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence…”: I repent to You of my request.

… and I am the first of the believers”: I am the first to believe that You cannot be seen.

The above is the most apparent meaning of the text. Yet, there is room for further contemplation.

What is Meant by Seeing

What the common mind would understand from this verse is that it pertains to physical vision through looking with the eyes. It stands to reason—and we shall have no doubt—that physical vision requires a set of physical processes which create an image of the object that is being observed in the visual faculty of the observer. That is how the image would represent the same shape and color as the object. In short, what we know for sure is that physical vision is realized when there is some physical matter in both the object and the subject.

The Qur’an, however, teaches us very expressly that there is no like or similar for the Almighty God in any aspect whatsoever. God is neither physical, nor has physical properties. He is not encompassed by time and space. He is not to be found in any physical direction. There cannot exist any image—whether mentally or externally—that may represent and resemble Him in any way whatsoever. All these are definite Qur’anic principles.

Clearly, such a Being cannot be an object of physical vision, in the way that we see other things. Nor can there be any mental image—whether in this world or in the hereafter—which may correspond to Him and reflect Him. Besides, Moses was a great prophet. He was one of the five Resolute Messengers (ūlū al-ʿazm) who are the chiefs of all prophets. Given his lofty position and grand status, he could not have been ignorant of this.

Nor would he entertain the wish that God may empower his eyes to see and observe Him, because we are talking about a Being that is transcendent from motion, direction, space and time. God is free from the defilement of physical matter and its properties. Otherwise, such a desire from Moses would be a frivolous hope, not a serious request.

It is also meaningless to bring up God’s infinite power to justify a physical interpretation. Our visual faculty is a physical property in its essence and nature, which makes it impossible for it to observe a reality that has absolutely no trace of physical matter and physical properties. No matter how much God strengthens a physical instrument, as long as it is physical in nature, it cannot be applied to something that is beyond matter and material properties. A physical device can only observe something of limited size and boundary.

Given the above points, the vision of God that Moses desired was not physical vision. And as a corollary to this, God’s negative answer was also about a non-physical vision. Otherwise, a physical vision of God is out of the question ipso facto. It was neither something to be requested [by a prophet like Moses], nor something to be rejected [in such a context].

There are indeed other verses in the Qur’an which affirm the vision of God and other similar concepts: Some faces will be fresh on that day, looking toward their Lord (); The heart did not deny what it saw (); Whoever expects to encounter Allah [should know that] Allah’s [appointed] time will indeed come (); Is it not sufficient that your Lord is witness to all things? Look! They are indeed in doubt about the encounter with their Lord! Look! He indeed encompasses all things! (); So whoever expects to encounter his Lord—let him act righteously, and not associate anyone with the worship of his Lord (). There are many other verses which can be added to this list. Yet, there are also some verses which deny the vision of God, such as: The sights do not apprehend Him, yet He apprehends the sights (). The current verse is another example of this: He said, “You shall never see Me” ().

So what is intended by verses which affirm the vision of God? According to some scholars, what is meant by ruʾyah (seeing, vision) is decisive knowledge. It is called ruʾyah to emphasize and/or exaggerate the clarity and evidence of that knowledge.

It is true that ruʾyah is a form of decisive knowledge in the Qur’an, but that is not sufficient. We need to dig deeper to find the reality of this decisive knowledge. Not every sure piece of information is called ruʾyah (seeing, vision) or other similar concepts like liqāʾ (meeting, encounter). For instance, we know for sure that there used to be someone called Prophet Abraham, someone called Alexander, and someone called Caesar in the past, even though we have not seen them. We also have decisive knowledge that London, Chicago and Moscow exist, even though we may not have been there. Yet, we do not use “seeing” to describe our knowledge in these cases, even if we were to emphasize and exaggerate. One may say, “I know about the existence of Abraham, Alexander and the Caesar as though I have seen them” but one would not literally say, “I have seen them.” Similarly, one who has not been to these cities may describe their knowledge of the cities by saying, “I know that London, Chicago and Moscow exist” but one would not say, “I have seen them [before]” or “I see them [now].”

A more patent form of decisive knowledge is our knowledge about self-evident truths, such as: “One is half of two”; “Four is even”; “A relation hinges on two sides.” These are not material or sensory observations because they are universal statements. They are decisive and necessarily true, but we refer to them as things that we know, not things that we see. It is semantically incorrect to use ruʾyah for such decisive knowledge. This should be clear.

The same can be said about all kinds of acquired knowledge, such as all thoughts and statements that we understand, and all concepts and meanings that we imagine. We call them knowledge, but we do not call them ruʾyah. We say, “I know this,” but we do not say, “I see this.” In such cases, we might use the word “view” (raʾy) in the sense of judgment and position, but not in the sense of observation and experience.

Yet, there remain some forms of knowledge for which we use the term ruʾyah (seeing, vision) without any reservation. Some examples are: “I see that I am myself”; “I see that I want this”; “I see that I don’t want this”; “I see that I like…”; “I see that I hate…”; “I see that I hop…”; “I see that I desire…” In these statements, what is meant is that I find and feel myself directly, without being veiled by anything. I observe in the innermost essence of myself a sense of desire, resentment, love, hate, hope, ambition and so on. It is neither a sensory nor an intellectual observation, but a feeling that I find within myself.

This should not be mixed with similar statements about others, such as: “I see that you like this” or “I see that you don’t like this.” In these cases, what is meant is: “I saw you in a certain condition, behaving in a certain way. From that, I deduced that you must like or dislike such-and-such.” This is categorically different from observing one’s own desire, resentment, like and dislike. One finds these things within oneself without any barrier, and without the intermediation of argumentation or deliberation. In the case of others, however, one arrives at the given conclusion through mental inference and deduction.

It is common to use ruʾyah for one’s personal experience of one’s inner conditions. This is a type of knowledge where the knower observes the very external reality of the known [that is, the object of knowledge]. This includes one’s knowledge about oneself, one’s inner faculties, one’s personal traits, and one’s psychological conditions. The realization of this kind of knowledge does not depend on any physical condition such as direction, time or place. The reader must reflect on this very carefully.

This sense of observation (ruʾyah) is indeed what is meant in the Qur’anic verses which affirm divine vision. There are some indications and evidence in these verses which clarify this meaning for us. Some examples are:

(1) Is it not sufficient that your Lord is witness (shahīd) to all things? Look! They are indeed in doubt about the encounter with their Lord! Look! He indeed encompasses all things! (). The first verse states that God is present with everything, where He is either the witness or witnessed. The second verse states that He encompasses all things. These two qualities—of being a witness over all things and encompassing them all—apply to God not in a physical sense. His presence is not restricted to any particular direction, place or object. Therefore, if He were to be found and observed, He would be found both outside and inside, encompassing not only the person, but also the person’s cognition, observation and experience. The same applies to the encounter with their Lord [mentioned between the two qualities of witnessing and encompassing all things]. What is meant is not a physical encounter, which occurs only when two objects are physically aligned with one another in the same time and place.

(2) The heart did not deny what it saw (). In this verse, “seeing” is ascribed to the heart, which is undoubtedly the rational human soul, not the piece of flesh that is on the middle-left side of the chest.

(3) When Our signs are recited to him, he says, “Myths of the ancients!” No indeed! Rather, their hearts have been sullied by what they have been earning (). According to these verses, what veils one from God is the rust of disobedience, which one acquires through sins. This defilement obstructs one’s heart—meaning one’s soul and self—from one’s Lord. Hence, they lose the privilege of observing the divine. This means that if they were to see God, it would have been through their hearts—that is, their soul and self—not through their physical eye.

(4) No indeed! Were you to know with knowledge of certainty, you would surely see hell. Again, you will surely see it with the eye of certainty (). These verses also affirm some form of seeing that is different from physical sight.

(5) Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth, that he might be of those who possess certitude (). We discussed this verse previously, and explained that malakūt means the inner orientation of things, as opposed to their visible aspect.

The above discussion should clarify that there are two types of vision in the Qur’an: (1) sensory vision through the physical eyes; (2) an inner consciousness of oneself without the involvement of sensory or mental instruments. We humans have a certain shuʿūr (consciousness, cognizance, sense, feeling) of our Lord other than our acquired belief through thinking, argumentation and evidence. Our divine consciousness is a direct experience. It is not veiled by anything. Nor can anything make us distracted and heedless of it, except for our occupation with ourselves and the sins we commit. But even so, that would still be a form of ghaflah (heedlessness, inadvertence, distraction), which is different from ignorance. It means that one is inadvertent of some reality that is present nonetheless, not that the knowledge is lost altogether. The Qur’an talks about heedlessness, which is when one mode of knowledge [of the divine] vanishes in the shadow of another mode of knowledge [of engagement with multiplicities]. Otherwise, there is no verse in the Qur’an to hint at a complete loss of this knowledge.

What we said above is based on the Qur’an, and is also supported by robust rational arguments. The narrations from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt also confirm this, as we shall see in our examination of the narrations, by God’s will.

We can also infer from the Qur’an that this type of knowledge of God—which can be called ruʾyah—will become complete for His righteous servants on the Day of Resurrection, as the Qur’an says: Some faces will be fresh on that day, looking toward their Lord (). This means that the place for such vision is the hereafter, not this world. In this world, our souls are engaged with the management of our bodies, and we are engrossed in our physical needs. Nonetheless, we are travelers on the path of meeting the divine and achieving decisive knowledge about the signs of our Lord. In this world, we are still on the path, where we are constantly laboring hard toward the meeting of our Lord, but the meeting is not realized until we actually encounter Him [in the hereafter]. God says: O human being! You are laboring toward your Lord laboriously, and you will encounter Him (). There are many other verses in the Qur’an in this regard, saying that the Almighty God is the end, goal, final destination and returning point of all beings.

This is the special type of decisive knowledge that God has affirmed for Himself in the Qur’an, and has called it ruʾyah (seeing, vision) and liqāʾ (meeting, encounter). Whether these terms are used literally or figuratively is not our concern. As we explained above, the circumstantial evidence (sing. qarīnah) in the verses shows that what is meant by “seeing” is this type of knowledge [not physical sight]. Now, if the term is used literally, then the evidence would be determining evidence. If the term is used figuratively, then the evidence would be averting evidence. The Holy Qur’an is the first book to unveil this reality in such a novel way. The previous scriptures that we have at hand are silent about such knowledge of God. Similarly, we do not find any discussion of such topics in the works of the ancient philosophers that have reached us. True, they talked about presential and immediate knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḥuḍūrī), but to them, this type of knowledge exclusively pertained to one’s knowledge of oneself. Extending its application to knowledge of God is something that came with the advent of Islam. Therefore, we must be grateful to the Qur’an for elucidating divine teachings for us.

Back to the Verse:

When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You!”…: Moses requested to “see” God, which, as we explained, means a special kind of decisive knowledge about the divine. This request was subsequent to several stages of divine knowledge which God bestowed upon him. God first gave Moses knowledge of Himself through reflecting on His signs. Then He advanced Moses’ knowledge by choosing him as His messenger and speaking to him, which is a form of knowing God through hearing. At that stage, Moses hoped that he could also realize knowledge through seeing, which is the highest stage of decisive knowledge of God. After all, God is the best One to be hoped and trusted.

This is what he requested, not “seeing” in the sense of physical sight with the eyes. A noble prophet like Moses would be far from not knowing that such vision of God is impossible.

… He said, “You shall never see Me…”: This is an everlasting negation. However, God affirms the realization of divine vision—in the sense of decisive knowledge—in the hereafter [in other verses]. Therefore, the negation in this verse pertains to worldly life. As long as one is busy with managing the body and taking care of various needs to survive, one will not realize a state of total severance from everything but God. That will only occur when one is cut off from all things, including one’s body and its properties, which amounts to death.

The meaning is: You are never capable of seeing me—in the sense of decisive knowledge—in this world until you encounter Me [after death]. At that point, you will know Me with the kind of decisive knowledge that you desire.

… You shall never (lan) see Me…: The apparent meaning of the negational particle lan is “never,” which indicates everlasting negation. This, however, need not extend to the hereafter. The decisive knowledge being negated here could be realized at that point, and this does not contradict the usage of lan (never) in the verse, because as long as something does not occur for the duration of this world, it is sufficient for the usage of lan. Some other Qur’anic examples of using lan for everlasting negation only in this world are: Indeed you will never (lan) pierce the earth, nor ever (lan) reach the mountains in height (); Indeed you can never (lan) have patience with me! ().

Even if one insists that the apparent meaning of lan in this verse is total negation in both this world and the hereafter, we could draw on the verse: Never (lan) will the Jews be pleased with you, nor the Christians, until (ḥattá) you followed their creed (). Here, the apparently everlasting negation lan (never) is qualified with ḥattá (until, unless), which indicates the possibility of an end to it. Therefore, we could say that other verses which affirm the vision of God in the hereafter—like Some faces will be fresh on that day, looking toward their Lord ()—would similarly qualify the apparent everlasting negation in the current verse.

… You shall never see Me…: The negation here pertains to Moses’ capability and endurance. This interpretation can be confirmed by the next part of the verse: But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me. God revealing Himself to Moses is compared to His manifesting Himself to the mountain. The meaning is: My appearance and manifestation to the mountain is similar to My appearance to you. So if this great mountain, with its high degree of endurance, can stay as it is in its place, then you too can hope to endure the appearance and manifestation of your Lord.

… But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me…: This statement does not prove that divine manifestation is impossible. How could it be impossible when God indeed manifested to the mountain? Rather it is meant to show and teach Moses that he is incapable of bearing the divine manifestation. If God were to manifest to him, Moses would not abide in its place, which means he would cease to exist, just as it happened to the mountain as it crumbled.

… So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it…: As we said, this statement shows that divine manifestation is possible. The mountain was crushed and transformed into tiny dust particles, which means that it lost its identity as a mountain. God’s manifestation gave an end to the mountain’s term [of existing as a mountain].

… and Moses fell down swooning…: The context shows that Moses fell down swooning because of the shock and terror of observing that scene. Here we must remind ourselves that Moses was the one who throw the staff, whereby it turned into a manifest python, and swallowed thousands of pythons and snakes. He was the one who split the sea, and drowned thousands and thousands of Pharaoh’s clan in a single moment. He was the one who raised the mountain above the heads of the Israelites as though it were a cloud. He was the one who performed many other miracles. These things were more shocking and extensive than the collapse of the mountain, but he was not terrified by any of them. The crumbling of the mountain was lesser than those events. Moreover, he was apparently immune from any harm, because God crushed the mountain in order to show him something.

We can thus infer that what made him faint was a realization that occurred to him with respect to his request, and the absolute dominance of God which he came so close to witness. Of course, he did not witness it himself, but the mountain did, and that resulted in its total destruction, whereby it could not stay in its place even for the blink of an eye. This interpretation [of the cause of his swooning] can be confirmed by his repentance after his recovery, as we shall see presently.

… And when he recovered, he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence (tubtu, from tawbah)…”: Moses repented and turned to God in penitence because he realized that his request was out of place. God embraced him in His grace to show him that his request is impossible [in this world]. He taught him this lesson experientially through the destruction of the mountain as He manifested to it.

Moses first glorified God and proclaimed His sanctity with respect to his previous notion that it is possible to see God [in this world]. Then he stated his repentance of what he had done, indicating his hope that God would also return to him [with mercy and forgiveness]. The applicability of tawbah (repentance, penitence) is not restricted to cases of some sin or disobedience. Rather, it means returning to God after any sense of distance in any way. We discussed this in volume 4 of this book.

… and I am the first of the believers”: Given the context, what is meant is: “I am the first one among my people to believe that You cannot be seen.” Another possible meaning is: “I am the first believer among my people because of Your guidance and blessing. I believed in You before they did. Therefore, it befits me to repent to you of any intentional or unintentional shortcoming.” However, this meaning is unlikely [given the verse’s context].

قَالَ يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسَالَاتِي وَبِكَلَامِي فَخُذْ مَا آتَيْتُكَ وَكُنْ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ ١٤٤

(7:144) He said, “O Moses, I have chosen you over (iṣṭafaytuka ʿalá) the people with My messages and My speech. So take what I give you, and be among the grateful.”

Iṣtifāʾ means “choosing (ikhtiyār) what is most refined and pure.” That is why its object, the people, is introduced with the preposition ʿalá (over, on, above). It should be noted that My messages are different from My speech in this verse [because they are mentioned separately]. “Messages” refer to anything that Moses was charged with to convey to the people, including the divine commands, prohibitions, teachings, wisdoms and laws. These meanings and messages could be conveyed to him either through the intermediation of an angel, or directly cast upon his heart. Even if the messages were communicated to Moses through speech, they refer to the meanings that he received as the audience, not to the speech itself.

“Speech” refers to direct communication between God and Moses, without the involvement of an angel. “Speech” is something that unveils what the speaker holds within. What is meant here is not the kind of speech that is common among us humans. We have assigned certain sounds to certain meanings by convention, in order to direct the audience’s mind to our intended meaning. When we wish to convey a meaning to another person, we create certain sound waves in the air, which originate from us and end at the audience. This form of speech requires physicality, while God is free from that. Meanwhile, God’s speech should not be interpreted as the mere creation of some sound waves and vibrations in the air. That is not sufficient to show that the meaning conveyed by those sounds is in fact what God had intended to convey. One needs something beyond the sounds to uncover God’s intention. This can be compared to when someone creates a knocking or beating sound to convey a meaning. In order to know what the person intends, they must have indicated to us previously, either explicitly or implicitly, that this is indeed what they mean by that sound.

In the Qur’anic accounts of God’s speech with Moses, he never asks God for some indication to ascertain that this is indeed God’s speech, or that this is God’s intended meaning. For instance, when Moses heard the call from the right side of the Mount from the tree, he did not inquire, “Is this from you, my Lord? And is this what you mean?” Instead, he was completely certain about it. This holds about all forms of divine revelation, including those that are not through speech.

This shows decisively that the audience must have a unique connection with what is intended by the speaker of revelation. It is through that connection that the audience would know the intention behind the speech. Otherwise, just because some sound is created by God which has some meaning in a language does not grant the ascription of that meaning to God as His speech. After all, all words that are uttered by all speakers are sounds that trace to God, but they do not count as God’s speech. They are rather attributed to other speakers. Similarly, it may happen that two objects collide with one another, and emit a sound that has a meaning in some language. Yet, we do not consider that to be God’s speech.

In short, God’s speech is when He creates a special connection and link between His audience and the unseen, such that the audience would arrive at His intended meaning through observing something of God’s creation. This could be concomitant with the creation of some sounds in the air or in the ear of the audience, and it could be through other channels. We had “A Talk about the Speech of Allah” previously, and shall add a few more points in Sūrah al-Shūrá, if God wills.

Either way, this verse—He said, “O Moses, I have chosen you… ()—is meant to show God’s favor upon Moses. He is also admonished to be content with being chosen by God with His messages and His speech, to be grateful for them, and not to demand more than that.

وَكَتَبْنَا لَهُ فِي الْأَلْوَاحِ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مَوْعِظَةً وَتَفْصِيلًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ فَخُذْهَا بِقُوَّةٍ وَأْمُرْ قَوْمَكَ يَأْخُذُوا بِأَحْسَنِهَا ۚ سَأُرِيكُمْ دَارَ الْفَاسِقِينَ ١٤٥

(7:145) And We wrote for him in the Tablets (al-alwāḥ, from lawḥ) from all things some advice and some elaboration of all things, [and We said], “So hold on to them with power, and bid your people to hold on to the best of [what is in] them. Soon I shall show you the abode of the transgressors.”

Lawḥ is “a sheet that is designed and prepared for writing.” When lightning flashes, it is said: lāḥa al-barq. That is the root of this term. In like manner, a tablet (lawḥ) manifests (yalūḥu) the lines that are written on it.

… from (min) all things some advice…: The preposition min is partitive (tabʿīḍiyyah), as one can infer from the subsequent part of the verse. Some advice is a descriptive addition for all things.

… and some elaboration (tafṣīlan) of all things…: The conjunction “and” connects elaboration to advice in the previous part of the verse. The indefinite form (nakirah) of “some elaboration” implies ambiguity and partition.

The effective meaning is: We wrote for Moses in the Tablets—that is, the Torah—a selection of everything. By that, what We mean is that We wrote for him some advice and some elaboration and explanation for everything with respect to religious beliefs and practices, as per the needs of his people.

This verse implies that the Torah did not cover everything that humankind needs in terms of religious teachings and laws. This can also be deduced from another verse, which says after a mention of the Torah and the Gospel: We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it of the Book, and encompassing them (). We already had a discussion on this verse.

… [and We said], “So hold on to them (fa-khudhhā) with power, and bid your people to hold on to the best of [what is in] them…”: The letter fāʾ (so, therefore, then) at the beginning of this part indicates consequence and conclusion. The sentence is added to: And We wrote for him in the Tablets…, which indicates that the entire verse is something that was said to Moses. The implied meaning is: “We said to him, ‘We have written for you in the Tablets from all things some advice, so hold fast to them.’”

“Holding on to something with power” is a metaphorical expression for determination and seriousness. If one is seriously determined about something, they will use all their power, lest they lose that thing. Therefore, holding with power is a necessary implication of serious attention and determination. The verse refers to seriousness and determination indirectly through their implication.

… and bid your people to hold on to the best of [what is in] them…: The pronoun “them” apparently refers to all things, including the admonitions and elaborations of rites and laws. “Holding on to the best of something” means choosing, following, and siding with goodness in all affairs. When one is concerned with what is good in all circumstances, then if they are confronted with good and evil, they would choose the good. And if they face good and better, their love for goodness would lead them to choose the better and give it a higher priority over the good. Therefore, “holding the best” is a necessary implication of the love for beauty and goodness. Again, the verse refers to something indirectly by stating its implication. The meaning is: “Command your people to refrain from evil, and adhere to the good according to the Torah’s guidance.” A similar indirect expression can be found in the verse: those who listen to the word [of Allah] and follow the best [sense] of it. They are the ones whom Allah has guided, and it is they who possess intellect ().

… Soon I shall show you the abode of the transgressors: Based on the verse’s flow and connectedness, this part is about those who transgress the command mentioned just prior to it: and bid your people to hold on to the best of [what is in] them. As we said, they were commanded to adhere to the path of goodness in all affairs, and to follow guidance and truth. If one transgresses from this path, God will divert them from the straight path of guidance to pursue evil and error, as we shall see more elaborately in the next verse. The end of such individuals will be eternal loss and destruction. Therefore, the next verse—Soon I shall turn away from My signs ()—is an interpretation (or almost an interpretation) of this phrase: Soon I shall show you the abode of the transgressors (). Here are some other suggested meanings for the abode of the transgressors:

1. It refers to hell, with a tone of warning and threat.
2. It refers to the houses of Pharaoh and his people in Egypt.
3. It refers to the houses of the tribes ʿĀd and Thamūd.
4. It refers to the houses of the Amalekites and other tribes in the Levant. God will make the Children of Israel enter those towns to see their end.
5. It means that a transgressing lot will come at you and rule over you.

سَأَصْرِفُ عَنْ آيَاتِيَ الَّذِينَ يَتَكَبَّرُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَإِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا وَإِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الرُّشْدِ لَا يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا وَإِنْ يَرَوْا سَبِيلَ الْغَيِّ يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَكَانُوا عَنْهَا غَافِلِينَ ١٤٦

(7:146) “Soon I shall turn away from My signs those who are unjustly proud in the earth, and [even] though they should see every sign, they will not believe in it, and if they see the way of rectitude they will not take it as [their] way, and if they see the way of error they will take it as [their] way. That is because they deny Our signs and are oblivious to them.”

All forms of takabbur (arrogance, pride) are unjustified, much like all baghy (aggression, injustice). Yet, the verse qualifies pride in the earth with being unjust. Such qualifications in the Qur’an are descriptive (tawḍīḥī), not restrictive (iḥtirāzī). What is meant is to criticize and condemn the action. It means that pride and aggression are reprehensible because they are unjustified.

Some exegetes have suggested that unjustly is added as a restrictive qualification to rule out rightful forms of pride, such as showing arrogance against the enemies of God, and against those who are proud themselves. Therefore, unjustly serves to clarify that what is meant here is only condemnable pride.

The problem with this interpretation is that the verse does not mention “pride” unconditionally in its general sense, but it is about “pride in the earth,” which means seeking ascendancy over the servants of God, enslaving them, and domineering over them. Such forms of pride are necessarily unjust.

… and [even] though they should see every sign, they will not believe in it…: The conjunction “and” shows that this is another attribute of those who are unjustly proud in the earth. That is, they insist on disbelief and denial [of the truth].

… and if they see the way of rectitude they will not take it as [their] way, and if they see the way of error they will take it as [their] way…: This is a similar addition to their previous descriptions. The verse explicitly mentions both the negative and positive aspects of their behavior with respect to their paths in order to show their attitude. They are very careful and highly sensitive to oppose the path of growth, and to follow the way of error. Their behavior is such that one cannot give them the benefit of the doubt, and there remains no possibility that perhaps they were ignorant or mistaken.

… That is because they deny Our signs and are oblivious to them”: This sentence justifies why they have developed the above mentioned vices. It means: “They behave the way they do because of denying Our signs and being heedless of them.” This sentence could also be a justification for the first part of the verse: Soon I shall turn away from My signs.

وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَلِقَاءِ الْآخِرَةِ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ ۚ هَلْ يُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٤٧

(7:147) Those who deny Our signs and the encounter of the Hereafter, their works have failed (ḥabiṭat, from ḥabṭ). Shall they be requited (yujzawna, from jazāʾ) except for what they used to do?

The verse’s meaning should be clear. We can infer two points from this verse: First, the result of an act is the act itself. We discussed this repeatedly in our previous discussions. Second, ḥabṭ (cancellation, failure, annulment) is also part of one’s actions which will be given to the person as their result. If one’s action is a failure, then that failure will be the person’s result. Ḥabṭ is only applicable to actions which have some aspect of good. For instance, suppose someone who has both good acts and evil acts. If their good acts are cancelled, it means that they will receive painful results for their evil deeds, but will not receive any reward for their good deeds. This amounts to an evil requital.

Another possible interpretation is that jazāʾ (result, requital, payment) in this verse is about good reward in particular. Therefore, Shall they be requited except for what they used to do? is a way of saying that they will not be rewarded for anything, because they will have no good deeds with them, since all their good deeds have failed. The Qur’an says: We shall attend to the works they have done and then turn them into scattered dust (). The reason why jazāʾ here means reward in particular is that it pertains to the previous part of the verse about their works, which have failed, and the failure (ḥabṭ) of acts is only applicable to righteous deeds.

Some exegetes have said: There is no punishment for one who does not fulfill an obligatory act as long as they do not do anything sinful contrary to that, because this verse states that punishment is only for what one commits: Shall they be requited except for what they used to do?

Response: This argument is flawed because, as we explained above, jazāʾ (result, requital, payment) in this verse means reward. The meaning is: They will have no reward in the hereafter because they did not bring with themselves any good deeds. They did not perform any act that would be qualified for reward.

Moreover, it is almost known by necessity from the Qur’an that not performing God’s commands is a sufficient condition for one’s punishment, regardless of whether the person commits sinful acts contrary to that or not. God says: and whoever disobeys Allah and His messenger, indeed there will be for him the fire of hell (). There are also other verses in this regard.

وَاتَّخَذَ قَوْمُ مُوسَىٰ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ مِنْ حُلِيِّهِمْ عِجْلًا جَسَدًا لَهُ خُوَارٌ ۚ أَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّهُ لَا يُكَلِّمُهُمْ وَلَا يَهْدِيهِمْ سَبِيلًا ۘ اتَّخَذُوهُ وَكَانُوا ظَالِمِينَ ١٤٨

(7:148) The people of Moses took up in his absence a calf (ʿijlan) [cast] from their ornaments (ḥiliyyihim)—a body that gave out a lowing sound (khuwār). Did they not regard that it did not speak to them, nor did it guide them to any way? They took it up [for worship] and they were wrongdoers.

Ḥulī means “adornments and embellishments” such as gold and silver. It is the plural of ḥaly, just as thudī is the plural of thady (breast, mamma). ʿIjl means “calf.” Khuwār (lowing, mooing) is the specific sound of cattle.

… a body that gave out a lowing sound…: This expression is an additional description for the calf. It indicates that it was not a living calf, but only emitted a lowing sound like that of cattle.

This verse and the following verses discuss the story of the Children of Israel worshiping the calf. That was when Moses had gone to the tryst of his Lord, and they felt his absence was too long. Thus the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī) deceived them, took their ornaments, and molded a golden calf that gave a lowing sound. He told them that this was their god and Moses’ god. They prostrated themselves before it and adopted it as their god. The story is presented more elaborately in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā. The account given in these verses does not cover the details there, which confirms the view that Sūrah Ṭā-Hā was revealed before Sūrah al-Aʿrāf. Either way, the verse can be interpreted as follows:

The people of Moses took up in his absence a calf [cast] from their ornaments…: They did so between the time that Moses had gone to the tryst of his Lord and his return. The subsequent verses talk about his angry return.

… a body that gave out a lowing sound: The calf that they adopted as god and worshiped was such.

… Did they not regard that it did not speak to them, nor did it guide them to any way?…: God chides them for not paying attention to a clear and evident criterion of reason at first sight. If the calf is really a god, then it should speak to them and guide them to the right path.

The verse mentions only two attributes of the calf which were incongruous with its divinity: it did not speak, and did not guide them to any path. There are many other attributes that also contravene divinity, such as being physical, being manufactured, being limited, being temporal, being spatial, having a shape, and so on. The two qualities mentioned in the verse—not speaking and not guiding—are among the first and foremost attributes of a god. If one is to adopt something as a god, then the servant must know what pleases that god, and how to approach it. This can only be known by some form of speech and communication from the god, which would guide the servant to the proper way of its worship. However, it was clear to the calf-worshipers that their god neither speaks to them, nor guides them to any way.

Moreover, they saw and knew from before that God spoke to Moses and guided him; and through him He also spoke to the Israelites and guided them. Yet, when the Samaritan made the calf for them, they said: This is your god and the god of Moses, which he has forgotten (). So if the calf were really the god described by the Samaritan [that is, the God of Moses], then it should have spoke to them and guided them.

Overall, it must have been more than evident to their intellects that the calf is not their God, only if they were to think. That is why the verse adds: They took it up [for worship] and they were wrongdoers. It is as though one had asked: “So why did they take up the calf despite its case being so clear?” And the verse explains: They took it up [for worship] and they were wrongdoers.

وَلَمَّا سُقِطَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ وَرَأَوْا أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ ضَلُّوا قَالُوا لَئِنْ لَمْ يَرْحَمْنَا رَبُّنَا وَيَغْفِرْ لَنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ ١٤٩

(7:149) But when they became remorseful and realized they had gone astray, they said, “Should our Lord have no mercy on us, and forgive us, we will be surely among the losers.”

The first part of the verse literally says, “But when it fell in their hands.” Majmaʿ al-bayān explains:

The implied pronoun “it” in “It fell in their hands” (suqiṭa fī aydīhim) refers to balāʾ (calamity, affliction, misfortune). “Falling in hands” means that they found it right there with them, as though it were in their hands. This expression is used in cases of remorse and regret, when the person realizes something that was hidden from them. Both suqiṭa and usqiṭa are used, although suqiṭa is more eloquent. According to some, the meaning is: “That which is harmful to them was cast in their lap.”

The extensive books of tafsīr have offered many interpretations for this expression, but most—if not all—of them are contrived. The most plausible one is what we quoted from Majmaʿ al-bayān, which has been quoted from other exegetes anonymously. We can also deduce the meaning of this expression from the verse’s context, as follows.

But when they became remorseful and realized they had gone astray…: That is, when they noticed what they had done, pondered over it a second time, and saw that they had gone astray. As we can see, this expression implies awareness about something that they had neglected, and insight about something that they had ignored. It is as though they did something and presented it to the person for whom they had worked, but he returned their work to themselves and threw it back at them. Then they picked it up; “it fell in their hands.” Upon seeing it from near, they realized that what they had thought was wrong, and they had disregarded what they should not have disregarded. They found out that they missed something that caused their work to be ruined. At any rate, this phrase [“it fell in their hands”] is used as a proverb or figure of speech.

… Should our Lord have no mercy on us, and forgive us, we will be surely among the losers: This is an expression of their remorse and regret over what they had done and what they missed. What is mentioned in this verse—But when they became remorseful…—occurred after the following verses, because they realized their error only after Moses’ return. This can be confirmed by the elaborate account of the same story in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā. However, it is more coherent and relevant to mention one’s regret and remorse shortly after the cause of it. That is why this verse, which refers to their regret and remorse, is mentioned here, right after the last verse about their adoption of the calf.

Another reason for mentioning their remorse here is that it is expressed in the form of a prayer. As we shall see below, Moses also prayed for himself and his brother after his return. The current verse is mentioned here so that there is a separation between Moses’ prayer and the apparent prayer of the Israelites.

وَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مُوسَىٰ إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ غَضْبَانَ أَسِفًا قَالَ بِئْسَمَا خَلَفْتُمُونِي مِنْ بَعْدِي ۖ أَعَجِلْتُمْ أَمْرَ رَبِّكُمْ ۖ وَأَلْقَى الْأَلْوَاحَ وَأَخَذَ بِرَأْسِ أَخِيهِ يَجُرُّهُ إِلَيْهِ ۚ قَالَ ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي فَلَا تُشْمِتْ بِيَ الْأَعْدَاءَ وَلَا تَجْعَلْنِي مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ ١٥٠

(7:150) And when Moses returned to his people, angry and indignant (asifan), he said, “Evil have you substituted me (khalaftumūnī, from khilāfah) in my absence! Did you lose patience (ʿajiltum, from ʿajalah) with your Lord’s decree?” He threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by the head, pulling him towards himself. He said, “Son of my mother, indeed this people thought me to be weak, and they were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies gloat over me, and do not take me with the wrongdoing lot.”

Asaf means “intense anger and sorrow.” Asif is a ṣifah mushabbahah, derived from this root. Khilāfah means “taking up a position after someone else.” According to al-Rāghib, ʿajalah means “seeking and going after something before its time.” When one says, “ajiltu something” it means, “I sought it before its natural time.” Apparently what is meant by their Lord’s amr (decree, command, affair, thing) is the thing for which God had given Moses an appointment, which was the revelation of the Torah.

The meaning is: When Moses was about to return to his people, God informed him that his people had deviated into error by worshiping the calf. So he returned to his people extremely outraged and resentful. He reprimanded and condemned them for what they had done. He said, “You replaced me in a very evil way. Did you hasten the decree of your Lord, and seek it before its due time? That is the decree of the One in Whose hand is your good and growth. Nothing unfolds except according to His far-reaching wisdom. The haste, desire and satisfaction of others have no impact on His decree unless He wills.”

Here are a few other suggested meanings for Did you lose patience with your Lord’s decree:

Did you rush to worship the calf before receiving a command (amr) from your Lord?

Did you lose patience regarding God’s promise of reward for His worship? Is it that you turned to worshiping another god because you did not receive His promised reward [as soon as you wanted]?

Did you lose patience with your Lord’s command, ordering you to wait until Moses returns, and to maintain his covenant in the meanwhile? Did you decide to change his covenant because you felt that his tryst was over but he did not return?

However, our interpretation is more congruous with the theme and context of the verse.

… Evil have you substituted me in my absence! Did you lose patience with your Lord’s decree?…: This is a rhetorical question which implies a negation and rebuke. Moses was infuriated when he saw his people, so he took them to task.

… He threw down the Tablets…: This refers to the tablets of the Torah.

… and seized his brother by the head …: Moses grabbed his brother’s hair.

… pulling him towards himself…: In Sūrah Ṭā-Hā we read that Moses told his brother: O Aaron! What kept you, when you saw them going astray, from following me? Did you disobey my command? ().

… He said…: Aaron said.

… “Son of my mother…”: Aaron did not say, “my brother” or “son of my father,” but mentioned their mother in order to placate Moses and arouse his compassion.

… indeed this people thought me to be weak, and they were about to kill me…: Because Aaron resisted them and opposed their worship of the calf.

… So do not let the enemies gloat over me, and do not take me with the wrongdoing lot”: This would happen if Moses assumed that Aaron had also disobeyed him along with their opponents. Another thing that Aaron said, as narrated in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā, was: I feared lest you should say, “You have caused a rift among the Children of Israel, and did not heed my word [of advice]” ().

The apparent theme and context of the verses here, and in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā, suggest that Moses was upset with Aaron just as he was cross with the Children of Israel, although not for the same reason. In Moses’ view, Aaron did not put up sufficient resistance against the Children of Israel, as per his discretion that this was more expedient in that context, despite Moses’ absolute instruction upon his departure: and set things right and do not follow the way of the agents of corruption (). This much difference of opinion and style among two infallible prophets can be explained by different personality types and individual orientations. We have no evidence to reject this possibility. What contravenes infallibility is disobeying divine commands, not things that boil down to personal preference and lifestyle.

Moses grabbed the forelock of his brother and dragged him as though he was about to beat him. He did so believing that Aaron had ignored Moses’ advice, and had instead followed his own opinion about what is appropriate. Moses’ reaction was a disciplinary measure following an advisory command (al-amr al-irshādī), not a punishment for violating an authoritative command (al-amr al-mawlawī). Not to mention that even in that, Aaron was right. That is why when he narrated the story for Moses, Moses excused him and prayed for himself and his brother: My Lord, forgive me and my brother… ().

Here are a few other suggested interpretations for and he seized his brother by the head, pulling him towards himself:

1. What Moses did was because he found their act to be truly egregious, and was very upset with the situation. This can be compared to how one would pull one’s own beard and bite one’s lips upon intense excitement or anger. Moses treated his brother as one would treat oneself at the time of rage and resentment.
2. Moses wanted to demonstrate his anger to his people to make them realize the intensity of their deed, which was tantamount to disbelief and apostasy. He acted this way to indicate to them the severity of their case in his eyes, so that they would abstain from the like of it in future.
3. Moses pulled Aaron toward himself in order to whisper to him privately and ask him about the people. That is why when Aaron said what he said, Moses accepted and prayed for him.
4. Moses noticed a similar rage and resentment in Aaron as in himself. He seized Aaron’s head to caress him and to comfort his anxiety. But Aaron did not want the ignorant to take this as an expression of degradation and disdain. That is why he voiced his innocence, and Moses prayed for him.

However, most—if not all—of these interpretations are incongruous with the theme and context of the verses.

And when Moses returned to his people, angry and indignant…: This shows that Moses knew about the deviation of his people beforehand. This is mentioned explicitly in Sūrah Ṭā-Hā: Indeed We tried your people in your absence, and the Samaritan has led them astray (). What happened when he saw his people was that he manifested his rage outwardly. He reprimanded them, threw down the Tablets, seized his brother by the head, and pulled him toward himself. He displayed these reactions once he was back among his people, not when God informed him about their error. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that God’s report is more truthful than one’s sense perceptions, because our sensory perceptions sometimes betray us, while God only speaks the truth.

The explanation here is that knowledge has certain effects and implications, while observation has other effects and implications. Anger is when our defensive faculty is excited and aroused to either defend or avenge. However, one does not express this by merely knowing about the case. A fit of anger occurs when one observes the other side’s violation. That is when one would defend oneself or take revenge, either verbally or physically. But prior to seeing the other side, one’s knowledge of the issue only creates inner feelings like grief, resentment, and so on. This can be compared to its opposite feelings: if you are told that a loved one whom you have not seen for a long time is about to arrive, you would have a sense of happiness upon hearing the news. But that is incomparable to your feeling and state of elation when you actually see the person. Similarly, if you observe something amusing alone, it will only create an inner sense of wonder and entertainment in you. But if you observe it with someone next to you, you will also laugh. There are other similar examples of this.

قَالَ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِأَخِي وَأَدْخِلْنَا فِي رَحْمَتِكَ ۖ وَأَنْتَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ ١٥١

(7:151) He said, “My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy, for You are the most merciful of the merciful.”

This was a supplication that Moses offered. As we explained in our discussion on forgiveness at the end of volume 6, the applicability of forgiveness goes beyond sins.

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنَالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ وَذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُفْتَرِينَ ١٥٢

(7:152) Indeed those who took up the calf [for worship] shall be overtaken by their Lord’s wrath and abasement in the life of the world.” Thus do We requite the fabricators [of lies].

The words “wrath” and “abasement” are used in the indefinite form in this verse, which signifies greatness and immensity. The verse does not specify the implication and aftermath of this wrath and abasement, but has left them ambiguous. Therefore, multiple possibilities remain open: (1) The verse refers to their subsequent penalty, whereby the calf was burned and scattered in the sea, the Samaritan was expatriated, and a number of them were killed. (2) It refers to the humiliation, poverty, carnage, exile and enslavement which faced the Children of Israel. (3) “Wrath” pertains to otherworldly punishment, which means that their punishment included both misery in the hereafter and chagrin in this world.

… Thus do We requite the fabricators [of lies]: Regardless of which of the above interpretations we take, this sentence has a clear independent message. It indicates an ever-recurring divine custom with respect to fabricators of lies. They will meet God’s wrath and abasement in the life of this world. This is not only what we can infer from the verse, but also supported by rational arguments, as we have repeatedly explained.

وَالَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ ثُمَّ تَابُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهَا وَآمَنُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِنْ بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ١٥٣

(7:153) Yet [to] those who commit misdeeds but repent after that and believe—indeed, after that, your Lord shall surely be All-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.

The phrase “after that” is repeated in this verse. The first one refers to after they commit misdeeds. The second one refers to after they repent. The rest of the meaning should be clear.

This verse has a general meaning on its own. But in the given context, it serves as an exception for those who took up the calf (). If one genuinely repents of any sin—in the true sense of repentance—then nothing can hinder its acceptance. We discussed this under the verse: [Acceptance of] repentance by Allah… ().

This verse and the last one are a digression from the story, addressed to the Prophet. We can infer this from the following expressions in the two verses: Thus do We requite the fabricators [of lies] () and indeed, after that, your Lord (). The context shows that the verses are reporting an ongoing event in the past, which is inferred from shall be overtaken ().

وَلَمَّا سَكَتَ عَنْ مُوسَى الْغَضَبُ أَخَذَ الْأَلْوَاحَ ۖ وَفِي نُسْخَتِهَا هُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ هُمْ لِرَبِّهِمْ يَرْهَبُونَ ١٥٤

(7:154) And when Moses’ indignation abated, he picked up the Tablets whose inscriptions contained guidance and mercy for those who are in awe (yarhabūna, from rahbah) of their Lord.

Rahbah means “fear coupled with precaution.” The rest of the meaning should be clear.

Examining Narrations

1. Abū Wāqid al-Laythī said: Prior to the Battle of Ḥunayn, once we went out of the city with the Messenger of God. As we passed by a lote tree (sidr, Christ’s-thorn, ziziphus lotus), I said, “O Messenger of God! Make this a Hanging Tree (dhāt anwāṭ) for us, just as the pagans have a Hanging tree [for the fulfillment of wishes].” The pagans used to tie their weapons to a lote tree and cleave to it [in worship]. The Prophet said, “Glory be to God! This is like what the Children of Israel said to Moses: make for us a god like they have gods (). Indeed you are pursuing the ways of those who were before you.”

Author’s comment: In another similar narration it is added that there was a large lote tree, where people used to hang their weapons. Thus it was called Dhāt Anwāṭ (Hanging Tree). They used to worship that tree instead of God.

2. Concerning verse (We carried the Children of Israel across the sea…) it is narrated that once Raʾs al-Jālūt told Imam ʿAlī, “You [Muslims] did not even endure thirty years after your prophet, before some of you drew out the sword against others.” Imam ʿAlī quipped, “Your feet had not dried from passing the sea when you said: make for us a god like they have gods ().”
3. Imam al-Bāqir said: When Moses left his people for his Lord’s rendezvous, he appointed them thirty days. When God added another ten days to the thirty, his people said, “Moses broke our promise.” Thus they did what they did.
4. The Messenger of God said: When God spoke to Moses on the day of his tryst in Mount Ṭūr, He spoke in a different way from how He had spoken to him on the first day of calling him [from the burning bush]. Moses inquired, “My Lord, is this the same speech with which You spoke to me [before]?” God replied, “O Moses, I spoke to you with the power of 10,000 tongues, while I possess the power of all tongues and even more.” When Moses returned to the Children of Israel, they asked, “Moses, describe the speech of the All-Merciful for us!” Moses said, “You are not capable of [hearing] it. Notice the sounds of thunderbolts which you hear in the most silent solitudes. That is close to it, but not it.”

Author’s comment: There is no problem with the image given at the end of this narration, because it is an analogy to make the subject more tangible. But an earlier part of the narration is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps what is meant by 10,000 tongues is the ability of 10,000 tongues in transmitting and clarifying a message, assuming that they support one another. This is based on the fact that people have different abilities in conveying a message through their tongues. Therefore, what is meant is that God’s communication clarified the meaning and unveiled what He meant in a way that 10,000 tongues would be able to do, if they were to be added together. Based on this interpretation, the difference at the beginning of the narration—where it says, “a different way from how He had spoken to him on the first day of calling him”—means a different level of communication.

5. Hishām says: Once I was with Imam Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq. Then Muʿawiyah b. Wahab and ʿAbd al-Malik b. Aʿyan came. Muʿawiyah b. Wahab asked the Imam, “O son of God’s Messenger! Some have narrated that the Messenger of God saw his Lord. What is your opinion about that? In what form did the Prophet see God? Also, some have narrated that the believers will see their Lord in paradise. What is your opinion about that? And in what form will they see Him?” The Imam smiled and then said, “Muʿawiyah! It is a shame for someone to reach seventy or eighty years, having lived in God’s kingdom and having enjoyed His blessings, but not knowing Him as He deserves to be known.” Then he added, “Muʿawiyah! Muḥammad did not see the Almighty God through physical sight. Vision is of two types: the vision of the heart, and the vision of the eye. If what is meant is the vision of the heart, then the person has hit [the truth]. But if what is meant is the vision of the eye, then the person has lied and disbelieved in God and His communications, for the Messenger of God said, ‘Whoever compares God to His creation has indeed disbelieved.’

“Similarly, my father narrated for me from his father, from al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, that Once Imam ʿAlī was asked, ‘O brother of God’s Messenger! Have you ever seen your Lord?’ ‘I would never worship,’ he replied, ‘a Lord that I do not see. The eyes do not see Him through eyesight, but the hearts see Him through the realities of faith.’ Likewise, if the believers would see their Lord through eyesight, then it means that He is created and originated, because anything that can be seen is created, and anything that is created needs some creator. And whoever compares God to His creation has associated some partners for Him.

“Shame on them! Have they not heard these words of God: The sights do not apprehend Him, yet He apprehends the sights, and He is the Ever-Subtle, the Ever-Aware (), and these words that He said to Moses: “You shall never see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.” So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it, and Moses fell down swooning ()? The divine light that shined on the mountain was only as much as a ray that can pass through the eye of a needle. Thus the ground was levelled, the mountain crumpled, and Moses fell down swooning, which means dead. And when he recovered: when God returned his soul to him; he said, ‘Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence: from the view of those who think that You can be seen. I return to my original knowledge of You: that the eyes do not comprehend You. And I am the first of the believers: in the fact that You see but cannot be seen, and that You are on a higher outlook…”

6. Imam ʿAlī said: While Moses was praising God, it also flowed from his tongue to ask: My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You! His request was an immense thing; he asked for a lofty matter. God admonished him and said, “You shall never see Me in this world, until you die and see Me in the hereafter. But if you wish to see Me, then look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me. God disclosed some of His signs: as our Lord manifested to the mountain, it shattered into dust and Moses fell down swooning. Then God resurrected him and gave him a new life. Then he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence, and I am the first of the believers.” It means: I am the first among them [my people] to believe that You cannot be seen.

Author’s comment: The last two narrations clearly confirm our interpretation of the verse. We can infer the following four points from these two narrations:

1. Moses’ swooning was a death, not a state of fainting. Then God returned his soul to him.

2. The Imam said that the divine light appeared “only as much as a ray that can pass through the eye of a needle.” This is imagery and should not be taken literally. It is meant to explain an abstract meaning using a concrete and tangible representation. Otherwise, divine light is not physical light. Nor can it be measured by something physical like the eye of a needle. This can be confirmed by other images used in other narrations. As we shall see below, in a similar narration, the Prophet places the tip of his thumb on the tip of his little finger [for illustration]. In either analogy, what is meant is to show littleness and insignificance. Furthermore, the divine manifestation was only to the extent that would destroy and obliterate the observer. Otherwise, the divine light, in its fullness, is infinite and cannot be represented by anything with defined boundaries. One cannot make a correspondence between a limited measure and the Absolute.

3. The negative response that Moses received pertains to seeing God in this world. The possibility of divine vision—in the correct sense that we said [that is, decisive knowledge through the vision of the heart]—remains open for the hereafter, and Moses is deferred to then. We can deduce this from the verse: “But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.” So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it, and Moses fell down swooning (). This statement shows that in principle, the same manifestation which struck the mountain could also be experienced by Moses. The problem is that Moses would not be able to endure it, just as the mountain could not. The unveiling occurred to the mountain, and caused it to crumble and collapse. If it were to occur to Moses, he would likewise crumble and collapse. This means that divine manifestation is possible in and of itself, but it will result in the destruction and annihilation of the observer. In other words, even though God’s unveiling would result in one’s death [in this world], there is no logical or metaphysical impediment to it. As a matter of fact, there are mustafīḍah (multiple, diffused, numerous) narrations from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, saying that the Almighty God will manifest to the inhabitants of paradise, and they will have a visit of the divine every Friday [in the hereafter]. The same idea is mentioned in the Qur’an: Some faces will be fresh on that day, looking toward their Lord ().

4. Moses’ request was to see God through the vision of the heart, not through the vision of the eye. In the case of God, a physical vision of God is logically inconceivable, in any way that it may be assumed. It is also far from the status of God’s Interlocutor to be ignorant of this sense of God’s transcendence, which is self-evident to begin with. In fact, Moses referred to his people as “fools” because of their request to see God [through eyesight], as he prayed to his Lord: Will You destroy us because of what the fools amongst us have done? (). How could he step in the same path as those whom he called fools?

There emerged a very heated debate around this topic from the early years of Islam, especially during the times of Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq, up to the time of Imam al-Riḍā. The Muʿtazilites denied the physical vision of God outright, while the Ashʿarites affirmed its possibility in the hereafter. Both groups quoted this verse to support their view. There was also another group which affirmed it in both this world and the hereafter. This debate continued to persist and did not subside, except with the swords of Āl Ayyūb, who exterminated the Muʿtazilites and finished them off. Apparently that is what gave an end to this dispute.

The Muʿtazilites’ position can be summarized as follows: they relied on the statement, You shall never see Me (), as well as other scriptural evidence and rational proofs which deny physical vision. With respect to the verses and narrations that suggest physical vision, they offered other interpretations [different from their apparent meanings].

The Ashʿarites’ position can be summarized as follows: they relied on the comparison made in the verse: But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me (), as well as other verses and some narrations which suggest the possibility of physical vision in the hereafter. As with the contrary evidence and arguments, they offered other interpretations [different from their apparent meanings], just as they do in all theological discussions. Some of them argued that there is no basis for restricting physical vision to physical bodies. Rather, it is possible to see non-material things with the physical eye. One of their arguments was: (a) Physical vision is applicable to substance and accident both. (b) The only common denominator between substance and accident is that they are both categories of mawjūd (existent, being) in its unconditional sense. (c) Hence, any existent can be observed with the eye, even if it is free from having a body or physical properties.

The implausibility of these two positions—and other similar views and arguments—is more than clear in our time and age. In fact, their invalidity can be compared to the validity of self-evident statements (badihiyyāt). At any rate, it is not our purpose to discuss how each group has defended itself and criticized the other side. Interested readers should refer to the books of theology and lengthy Qur’anic commentaries of each group.

We clarified two points in our exposition of the verse:

(i) It is impossible to observe God through physical vision, whether in this world or the next. This includes our current eyesight, as well as any modified and transformed vision that involves material instruments in order to perceive physical properties such as size, form, color and light. This impossibility is supported by rational arguments, as well as the Qur’anic verses and narrations which negate divine vision. As with the verses and narrations which apparently affirm divine vision, what they mean is the realization of a special form of decisive knowledge of God, which will occur in the hereafter. There are clear indications and circumstantial evidence in these scriptural sources which support this interpretation. This type of decisive knowledge—which is called vision (ruʾyah)—is different from the kind of knowledge that one acquires through rational argumentations and mental processes.

(ii) The subject of physical vision is completely irrelevant to this verse: My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You… (). The verse neither proves nor disproves divine vision through eyesight. Neither the request [from Moses] nor the reply [from God] is concerned with this type of vision. The verse is entirely and exclusively about another form of vision, which is the “vision of the heart,” as coined by the narrations.

There is a long narration where al-Maʾmūn asks a series of questions to Imam al-Riḍā [about the infallibility of the prophets]. Concerning vision in this verse [], the Imam explains that this was a request which Moses made on behalf of his people, not for himself. They said, “Show us Allah visibly,” whereat a thunderbolt seized them (). When God brought them back to life, they demanded Moses to request this for himself. He told them that this was impossible, but they insisted. Thus he said, “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me” (), which means: Show Yourself to me based on my people’s demand [not my own request.

This narration is weak in terms of its chain of transmission, as we explained in our examination of traditions concerning Adam’s garden. Moreover, it contradicts the established principles in the traditions of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt. Their traditions, particularly the sermons of Imam ʿAlī and the sayings of Imam Riḍā, are filled with the idea of the “vision of the heart.” So why should the Imam accept the assumption that the request [from Moses] and the reply [from God] in this verse were about physical vision? Since the Imam takes this for granted in the above narration, he resorts to a polemical response which is not quite congruous with the verse, for it goes against its apparent meaning. It is also against the apparent attitude and style of Prophet Moses, because even if his people insisted, he would have declined their demand, just as he did elsewhere: They said, “O Moses, make for us a god like they have gods.” He said, “You are indeed an ignorant lot” ().

7. The Prophet recited this verse, So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it (), and made a gesture with two of his fingers: he placed the tip of his thumb on the tip of his little finger (or on the top joint of his little finger, according to some versions): “This is how much it was. The mountain collapsed, and Moses fell down swooning.” Another version of the narration reads: “The mountain collapsed into the earth, and it continues to sink in there until the Day of Resurrection.”

Author’s comment: Similarly, some narrations from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt say:

1. The mountain shattered into dust.

2. It sank into the sea, and continues to sink until the [final] Hour.

3. It has been sinking up to this time.

If we interpret these narrations in light of one another, the overall meaning is that the mountain turned into dust and fell into the sea, such that no trace of it remained. This should be what is meant by statement like: “The mountain collapsed into the earth (or the sea), and it continues to sink in there until the Day of Resurrection (or the Hour).”

8. Concerning So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain () the Prophet said, “This is how much He disclosed,” and he placed his thumb on the tip of his little finger.

Ḥumayd [who heard this from Abū Muḥammad, narrating from Anas] asked, “O Abā Muḥammad! What do you want from [narrating or believing] this?” Abū Muḥammad hit his [Ḥumayd’s] chest and said, “Who are you, Ḥumayd? What are you, Ḥumayd? Anas b. Mālik has narrated this to me from the Messenger of God, then you say: What do you want from this?!”

9. The Messenger of God recited this verse, My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You () and said: God said, “Moses! If anything alive sees Me, it will die. If anything dry sees Me, it will crumble. If anything wet sees Me, it will break up. It is only the inhabitants of paradise who will see Me; those whose eyes do not die, and whose bodies do not decay.”

Author’s comment: This is similar to a narration from Imam ʿAlī, which we quoted above from al-Tawḥīd. We discussed its meaning above.

10. It is narrated from Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq: Moses asked his Lord, “My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You!” He said, “You shall never see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me” (). So when he climbed the mountain, the gates of heaven opened and the angels came toward him in throngs. They were holding maces with lights shining from their tops. They passed by him in groups and told him, “Son of Amram (ʿImrān)! Be steadfast, for indeed you have made a mighty request.” Moses stood there until our Almighty Lord manifested, where He crumbled it, and Moses fell down swooning (). Then God returned his soul to him, when he said, “Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence, and I am the first of the believers.”
11. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: When Moses son of Amram asked his Lord to look at Him, God ordered him to sit somewhere. Then He commanded the angels to pass by him in processions, with thunder, lightning, wind, and bolts. When any procession passed by him, his heart would miss a beat. He would raise his head and ask, “Which one of you is my Lord?” They would respond, “He shall come! Indeed you have made a mighty request, O son of Amram!”

Author’s comment: This narration is fabricated. Its content cannot be matched with any of the established principles that are deduced from the Qur’an and the sunnah.

12. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “Indeed the cherubim (al-karūbiyyīn) are a group of our followers (lit. shīʿah), from the first creatures. God placed them behind His Throne. If the light of a single one of them is distributed among all inhabitants of the earth, it will suffice them.” The Imam then said, “When Moses asked his Lord what he asked, He ordered one of the cherubim to disclose itself to the mountain, and that crumbled it.”

Author’s comment: Cherubim are also mentioned in the Torah. The essential point in this narration is that God’s manifestation can occur through intermediaries, just like other acts that are attributed to Him, such as taking life, giving life, providing sustenance, and conveying a revelation. The Almighty God manifests through certain means, just as He takes the lives through the Angel of Death, gives life through the possessor of the Trumpet, gives sustenance through Michael, and sends revelation through Gabriel the Trustworthy Spirit. We shall discuss this narration in further detail in its appropriate place, if God wills.

13. It is narrated that the Prophet recited the word “crumbled” in verse as dakkan, not dakkā.
14. It is also narrated that the Prophet recited the word “crumbled” in verse as dakkā, where the verse says: So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He crumbled it ().
15. The Messenger of God said: So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain (), six mountains flew off due to His glory. They landed in Medina as mounts Uḥud, Wariqān and Raḍwá; and landed in Mecca as mounts Thawr, Thabīr and Ḥirāʾ.
16. The Messenger of God said: When God manifested [to the mountain] for Moses, seven mountains flew off. Five of them landed in Hejaz and two in Yemen. The ones which landed in Hejaz were Uḥud, Thabīr, Ḥirāʾ, Thawr and Wariqān. The ones which landed in Yemen were Ḥaḍūr and Ṣabir [or Ṣīr].

Author’s comment: There are other narrations about the splitting of the mountain. If these narrations are meant to interpret the crumbling of the mountain, they do not match the verse. If they describe some other event [unrelated to the verse’s interpretation], then it could have possibly occurred, but its occurrence cannot be proven with such solitary reports (called āḥād and khabar al-wāḥid). Not to mention the discrepancy between them concerning the number of mountains that flew off. The same can be said about the next five accounts.

17. It is narrated through both Shia and Sunni chains that the Tablets of the Torah were made of emerald.
18. It is narrated through Sunni chains of narration that the Prophet said: The Tablets that were sent down upon Moses were from a lote tree (sidr) in paradise. The length of each Tablet was 12 cubits.
19. According to another Sunni narration, God inscribed the Tablets for Moses while he could hear the creak of the pens on the Tablets.
20. It is narrated through Shia chains of narration that the Tablets are buried in a mountain in Yemen.
21. According to another Shia narration, a stone in Yemen swallowed the Tablets, so they are preserved in it.

Author’s comment: The last five accounts are solo narrations that are not supported by decisive evidence [to authenticate them]. Not to mention that an exegetical study does not depend on a close scrutiny of such accounts. There are other similar narrations to these.

22. It is narrated that [Imam] ʿAlī recited khuwār (a lowing sound) in verse as juʾār and said: It means “a high-pitched sound.”
23. Concerning He threw down the Tablets… () the Prophet said: May God have mercy on Moses! Seeing something is not like hearing about it. Even though his Lord informed him that his people deviated after him, he did not drop the Tablets. But when he saw them with his own eyes, then he dropped the Tablets, whereby some of them broke.
24. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “Indeed God informed Moses that his people had taken up a calf, [a body] that gave out a lowing sound () but that did not have the impact of seeing on him. When he saw them [in person], his anger was aroused and he dropped the Tablets.” The Imam said, “Seeing [something] is superior to hearing news [about it].”
25. Imam al-Bāqir said: “If any servant makes their belief in God pure and sincere [for Him] for forty days”—or according to another version: “If any servant makes splendid remembrance of God for forty days”—“God will make them disinterested in this world, will make them see its maladies and remedies, will establish wisdom in their heart, and will make their tongue speak it.” Then the Imam recited: Indeed those who took up the calf [for worship] shall be overtaken by their Lord’s wrath and abasement in the life of the world.” Thus do We requite the fabricators [of lies] () and added: “You will always see the innovators to be abased. You will always see one who fabricates a lie and attributes it to God, His Messenger, and his family abased.”

A Discussion of Narrations on the Vision of the Heart

Here we shall present some traditions from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt to elucidate what is meant by the “vision of the heart.”

1. Imam al-Riḍā said in a sermon: “He is One, but not in a numerical sense. He is Apparent, but not in the sense of direct [physical] contact. He is Manifest, but not to be detectable through vision. He is Hidden, but not separate.”

Author’s comment: God’s constant manifestation to His creatures is repeatedly mentioned in the words of Imam ʿAlī and the other Imams from his progeny. We quoted some of his words in our discussion of tawḥīd (monotheism, oneness) under the verse: They are certainly faithless who say, “Allah is the third [person] of a trinity” ().

2. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: He is One, Absolute, Beginningless, Endless. He has no shadow to maintain Him, but He maintains all things including their shadows. He knows every unknown. He is known to every ignorant person. Neither is He in His creation, nor is His creation in Him.

Author’s comment: Apparently what is meant by “He is known to every ignorant person” is that everyone has a certain knowledge of God which is never covered by ignorance, nor overcome by inadvertence. This cannot be the kind of knowledge that we acquire through rational arguments, because such knowledge disappears the moment its image disappears from the mind. This means that one might be ignorant of everything, but cannot be ignorant of one’s Lord. Alternatively, what is meant is that God is known even to those who are apparently ignorant of Him. Here we can see, even more clearly, that the knowledge meant here is not the kind of knowledge that one acquires through rational arguments and mental processes.

“He has no shadow to maintain Him, but He maintains all things including their shadows”: shadows and shades are special terms that we find in the narrations of the Imams. What is meant by the “shadow” of something is its boundary, border and limit. That is why it is negated about God, but affirmed about others.

We can find an interpretation of this term in a hadith from Imam al-Bāqir concerning dharr (atoms, particles, ants) and ṭīnah (clay, substance). There he says, “God created a group of His creatures from the clay of paradise, and another group from the clay of hell. Then He raised them in shadows (ẓilāl).” He was asked, “What are shadows?” He explained, “Look at your shadow in the sun: it is both something and nothing.” This corresponds to the existential boundaries and limits of the beings. Compared to their existence, the boundaries are something else; yet, they are not really some other form of existence [but they are merely boundaries of the same being]. These boundaries give every being its unique definition and specific determination. Without them, all particulars would disappear. Perhaps this term is taken from the Verse of Shadows.

3. Imam ʿAlī said: God is much greater than being veiled from anything, or anything being veiled from Him.
4. Imam ʿAlī said: I did not see anything except that I saw God before [seeing] it.
5. Imam ʿAlī said: I would never worship a Lord I do not see.
6. Imam ʿAlī said: The eyes do not see Him face-to-face, but the hearts see Him through the realities of faith.
7. Abū Baṣīr says: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq, “Will the believers see God on the Day of Resurrection.” “Yes,” he said, “and they have seen Him before the Day of Resurrection.”

“When was that?” I inquired?

“When He asked them: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes indeed!’” ().

He paused in silence for a while. Then he added: “And indeed the believers certainly see Him before the Day of Resurrection in this world. Don’t you see Him right now?”

I asked, “Can I quote you on this?”

“No. Because if you narrate it, one who is ignorant of its meaning would deny it. They would assume that it is a heretical analogy and anthropomorphism. However, seeing with the heart is not the same as seeing with the eye. God is far transcendent above what the anthropomorphist and infidel says.”

Author’s comment: This narration clearly negates two meanings of divine vision: (1) It does not mean physical vision with the eyes. (2) It does not mean a belief or conviction that the heart arrives at through proof and argument. It also shows why the word ruʾyah (seeing, vision) is not widely used for God in the narrations: because what the common mind understands from the term is physical vision, which is not applicable to God’s sacred precinct. Otherwise, the reality of ruʾyah can indeed be applied to God, where it means a conscious observation of something, but not through mental argumentation and deliberation. Incidentally, there are several narrations which deny the possibility of knowing God through thinking. We will present some of them below.

8. Imam Mūsá b. Jaʿfar said: There is no veil between Him and His creatures other than His creatures. He has veiled Himself, but not with any veil; and has covered Himself, but not with any cover. There is no god but Him, the All-Great, the All-Sublime ().

Author’s comment: This narration clarifies what is meant by the knowledge of God which is already available to everyone. It is a kind of knowledge that is never overcome by ignorance, nor does it ever disappear, change, or prove wrong. It explains that what conceals God from something is that thing itself. Paying attention to other things obstructs us from paying attention to an observation and vision of the divine. The Imam then adds that nonetheless, this veil and cover is not really an obstruction. It is a veil that cannot veil, and a cover that cannot cover [the Truth].

Putting the first and the second parts of this hadith together, we can deduce that God is known to His creatures. He is not absent or hidden from them, but is present to be witnessed by them. The only issue is that they do not realize that they are constantly witnessing Him because they are occupied with themselves and are oriented toward their delimited beings. The knowledge is always there, but knowledge of that knowledge is missing at times.

There is a hadith from Imam al-Ṣādiq, where he builds on this idea [that the knowledge of God is always present with everyone, though not always recognized]. Here is a paraphrase of it:

9. Once someone complained to Imam al-Ṣādiq about being overwhelmed by doubts [raised by the skeptics]. The Imam asked him, “Have you ever embarked on a ship? Did it happen that the ship broke and drowned, and you remained alone on a plank of wood? Were you tossed around by the waves? Did you come to a point of despairing from all means of rescue?” The man replied in the affirmative to all these questions: “Yes, I have been there!”

The Imam asked, “At that point, did your heart cling to anything [as a source of hope]?”

“Yes,” he said.

“That thing is God,” the Imam concluded.

10. Imam al-Riḍā said: God’s creation of the creatures is a veil between Him and them.
11. Al-Thumālī says: I asked Imam ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, “Why has God veiled the people from Himself?” He said, “Because God has constructed their structure on the foundation of ignorance.”

Author’s comment: Putting the last two narrations together, what is meant by “constructing them on a basis of ignorance” is that God has created them in a way that they get engaged and distracted with themselves.

12. Imam al-Bāqir said: God was, and nothing else. He was Light, and darkness had no way into Him. He was Truthful, and lie had no way into Him. He was Omniscient, and ignorance had no way into Him. He was All-Living, and death had no way into Him. Thus He is today. Thus He shall be forever…
13. Imam al-Riḍā said concerning the Messenger of God: Whenever he looked at his Lord with his heart, He placed him [or his heart] in a light similar to the lights of the [divine] veils, so that he may discern what is in the veils.
14. Muḥammad b. al-Fuḍayl says: I asked Abū al-Ḥasan [Imam al-Kāẓim], “Did the Messenger of God ever see his Lord?” He replied, “Yes, he saw Him with his heart. Have you not heard the verse: The heart did not deny what it saw ()? He did not see Him with the eye, but saw Him with the heart.
15. Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Whoever thinks that they can know God through a screen, a form or an analogy, is a polytheist, because the screen, the form and the analogy are things other than Him. He is One, and must be held as One [or He is One, absolutely One]. So if someone thinks that they can know God through something else, how can they be a monotheist? Anyone who knows God, would only know Him through Himself. If someone does not know Him through Himself, then they do not know Him, but they know something else. There is nothing to intervene between the Creator and the created. God has created all things not from any [other] thing. He is called by some names, but He is other than His names, and the names are other than Him. The noun is not the same as the adjective [which describes it]. If one thinks that they believe in something without knowing it, they have missed the knowledge [of God]. No creature can comprehend anything except through God. And the knowledge of God cannot be achieved except through God. God is empty of His creation; and His creation is empty of Him.

Author’s comment: According to this narration, God is known to any creature that has any share of knowledge of anything. It also explains that this knowledge is not a sort of contemplative knowledge that one acquires through instruments, indications and data. If one limits oneself to conceptual, intellectual and argumentative knowledge, then that involves ignorance about God and subtle polytheism.

We can explain this further using some premises and principles that can be deduced from the narration itself. We know that which we can comprehend. Whatever we can find and realize in our receptacle of comprehension and cognition, that is what we really know, not something else. If we were to know something through the intermediation of something else, then what we know in reality is the intermediary, because that is what we have comprehended, not the object at the other end. Now, is it possible that knowing the intermediary in the middle would amount to knowing the other object at the other end? This could occur only if the two are identical in one aspect. This means that the intermediary is the same as the other side in a sense, and not the same in another sense so that it can serve as a relation between the knower and the known. For instance, when we have a mental image of Zayd, that image is the same as the real Zayd outside. Otherwise, we have not perceived Zayd, but have perceived someone else. If this identity between external objects and their mental images [as their instruments and intermediaries] is denied, then all our knowledge would be ignorance.

However, there is no intermediary between the Creator and the created to serve as a relation between them. As a result, it is impossible to know God through anything other than Himself. If He is to be known through anything, that thing would be Himself. And if He cannot be known by Himself, then He cannot be known through anything else forever. If one claims that God can be known through anything else—such as some concept, principle, or external indication—then that is a subtle polytheism, because it implies that there is some intermediary between the Creator and the created, which is neither of them. Since this intermediary is not created, but stands between the Creator and the created, it would be needless of the Creator in its existence. That makes it a counterpart and partner for God. Hence, if God is to be known, He can only be known through Himself. And if He cannot be known through Himself, He certainly cannot be known through anything else. However, we know that God is known. Therefore, He is known by Himself. This means that “the divine essence” and “being known” are one and the same. It is impossible for God to be unknown, because His essence makes Him known. He is known by virtue of His very existence.

God is Always Known to Everyone

But how is it that God is known to every knower [of anything]? To explain and understand this, we must bear in mind that any created being relies on God in every aspect. It is not possible to find anything that is independent of God in any way whatsoever, whether in the external world, or in the mind. The existence of any created thing is like a relation or copula that cannot be found independently from the other side—that is, the Source on which it relies—in any way. Furthermore, when we have a knowledge of anything, that thing appears in our cognitive receptacle, as we explained above. However, no created being can be found in any mode of existence unless it is supported by God and relies on Him. Otherwise, it would be an independent entity from the Absolute [not something created]. Hence, no knower can comprehend its known object unless it first comprehends God.

Now, the knower is also created, which means that it depends on God in all its aspects, including its knowledge, because the entire existence of the knower is supported by God. If the knower could have its own knowledge independently of God, then it would no longer be a created being. This means that the knower also relies on God in order to be a knower, just as the known relies on God in order to be known. So while the knower and the known are two sides of knowledge, both of them depend on some independent Source which maintains them. On the side of the known, God is what is known before anything else. If anything else is known, it is subsequent to knowing God. On the side of the knower, God is what knows before anything else. If anything else is to know, it is subsequent to God’s knowing. The reader must reflect on this, and should also contemplate the verse: they do not comprehend anything of His knowledge except what He wills (), as well as the hadith: “I did not see anything except that I saw God before [seeing] it.”

It should now be clear that God is ever known to all knowers, because any knowledge about anything can only be realized by knowing Him first. This is a necessary condition.

Dissecting the Hadith

Let us discuss the above noble tradition [number 15] part by part:

“Whoever thinks that they can know God through a screen (ḥijāb), a form (ṣūrah) or an analogy (mithāl), is a polytheist.” There are a few possible interpretations for the three terms in this statement: (1) Apparently ḥijāb (screen, veil, intermediary) means anything that is assumed to separate Him from His knower. Ṣūrah (form) means a mental image that corresponds to the physical qualities of the external object, such as light, color and size. Mithāl (analogy, symbol) means an intellectual concept beyond the visible. (2) Ṣūrah means a physical form, while mithāl means an imaginary form [which is conceived and constructed mentally]. (3) Ṣūrah means a bare concept that is grasped and conceived (taṣawwur), while mithāl means a statement that is predicated and confirmed (taṣdīq). Either way, all intellectual and mental knowledge would be included under these categories. There are very many narrations which deny the possibility of comprehending God through intellectual and mental knowledge.

Such knowledge of God [through a screen, form or analogy] would be polytheism because it implies that there is something out there that is neither the Creator nor created. At the same time, it serves as an intermediary for knowing God, which means that it is the same as Him in a sense, and different from Him in another sense. We already explained this above. Thus the Imam continues:

“He is One, and must be held as One [or He is One, absolutely One].” That is, there is no associate or partner in the divine essence in any way whatsoever. Any such overlap would result in the divine essence being compound and mixed, and that would cancel His oneness. One example of such overlap is knowledge through a mental image. The mental image partakes of the meaning and quiddity of the known object in the external world, but does not share its existence. This makes the known object be composed of quiddity and existence.

“So if someone thinks that they can know God through something else, how can they be a monotheist?” Such a person effectively holds that there is some composition in the divine essence, and there is some counterpart and partner for God in existence.

“Anyone who knows God, would only know Him through Himself.” That is, one can only know God through knowing the divine essence, not through some intermediary.

“If someone does not know Him through Himself, then they do not know Him, but they know something else.” The next sentence explains why: “There is nothing to intervene between the Creator and the created.” That is, there is nothing else besides them to connect them to one another.

“God has created all things not from any [other] thing.” There is no other thing to serve as a link between them, connecting the Creator to the created, and vice versa. For instance, what connects an artisan to their artifact is the mental image in the artisan’s mind, and the raw material that they use.

“He is called by some names, but He is other than His names.” This is an answer to an implied question (called a prolepsis). One might object here: “We know God through His names which describe His beauty and majesty.” So the Imam anticipates and answers that possible objection by saying that the very act of using names to denote God necessitates some distinction and difference between Him and those names. Otherwise, knowing Him through His names would be the same as knowing Him through Himself, not through anything else. The Imam then reiterates this by saying that names to the divine essence are like adjectives to a noun, “The noun is not the same as the adjective [which describes it].”

One might raise another objection here: “We believe in a God that we do not know. It is not possible for us to know Him by Himself. We can only know Him through His signs. This can be called a knowledge of God only in a figurative sense.” Thus the Imam answers: “If one thinks that they believe in something without knowing it, they have missed the knowledge [of God].” One who makes the above claim does not really know what they are saying, because they certainly comprehend something, and there is no point trying to deny that.

“No creature can comprehend anything except through God.” Thus, every knower [of anything] knows God. It is not possible to know anything through God without knowing Him first.

“And the knowledge of God cannot be achieved except through God.” There is no other way to realize this.

“God is empty of His creation; and His creation is empty of Him.” That is, there is no common relation in some middle ground between the Creator and the created.

Based on this narration, any being that has any share of knowledge, intelligence and consciousness, knows God by necessity. The only thing is that many knowers are ignorant of their knowledge, and confused in this regard. One who knows God, would know Him by Himself, and would realize that: (i) they know God; (ii) they know everything else through Him. There are also other narrations which express some of the points mentioned in this hadith.

The reader should know that the narrations in this regard from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt are numerous indeed. There is no need to quote them all here. In addition, we did not open a philosophical chapter on this subject of vision because most of the narrations discussed above are philosophical in nature. That is why there was no need for a separate philosophical discourse.

---

1. In other words, the verbal pattern tafʿīl in this case implies abundance and multitude. (Trans.) ↩︎

2. See verses 59, 61, 65, 67, 73, 79, 85, 93, and the author’s exposition of them in volume 15 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

3. In other words, the maṣdar (gerund, verbal noun) here implies the meaning of mafʿūl (passive participial noun, accusative case). (Trans.) ↩︎

4. The first stage is what is meant by: arinī (show to me). The second stage is indicated by anẓur ilayka (that I may look at You). The last stage is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, as it is implied by the rest of the verse, especially by the statement: lan tarānī (You shall never see Me). (Trans.) ↩︎

5. The author’s point here is to distinguish between naẓar and ruʾyah. Naẓar is the stage when one turns one’s look toward something and searches for it. Ruʾyah is when one’s eyes actually sight the thing. Therefore, ruʾyah (seeing) is subsequent to naẓar (looking). (Trans.) ↩︎

6. “Being physical” and “having physical properties” refer to two planes of existence. Being physical means having a material body with spatiotemporal dimensions, which applies to all beings in the world of nature. Beyond the realm of nature is the imaginal world (ʿālam al-mithāl), where beings do not have a material essence and substance, but they have physical properties. For instance, geometrical shapes do not exist in time and space, but they have shape and form. The author’s point in these discussions is that in order for something to be perceived with the physical eye, it must belong to either of these two realms. If a being is absolutely transcendent, immaterial, and free from all physical properties, then it cannot be an object of eyesight. (Trans.) ↩︎

7. In metaphysical discussions, words like “defilement” mean existential limitation, and should not be mixed with value judgments, which are fundamentally foreign to metaphysical discourses. (Trans.) ↩︎

8. In other words, God rejected the same type of vision which Moses demanded. (Trans.) ↩︎

9. “Decisive” here is a translation of ḍarūrī (necessary, essential, certain). It means a kind of knowledge that is sure to be true, without even the possibility of a doubt. The author’s examples below help clarify this. (Trans.) ↩︎

10. This is called presential and immediate knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḥuḍūrī). In the other forms of knowledge, called acquired knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḥuṣūlī), the known is not directly present with the knower, but is available through a mental image of it that corresponds to its external reality. (Trans.) ↩︎

11. This depends on how the word shahīd is interpreted in the verse. In the Qur’an, it always means “witness” as a subject, not “witnessed” as an object. (Trans.) ↩︎

12. This is based on the Qur’an’s usage of the term in numerous places. (Trans.) ↩︎

13. See volume 13 (1st ed.), pp. 217ff of the English translation. Also, see verses below, just before the section titled “Back to the Verse,” as well as volume 1 (1st ed.), p. 191, under verse , and volume 2 (1st ed.), pp. 80-81, under verse . (Trans.) ↩︎

14. The discussion here is closely related to the author’s discussion on verses below. However, there is an important distinction to be made. The primordial covenant mentioned in verse is about our basic intuition and initial vision of the divine, while the current verse is about its ultimate perfection. That is why verses are applicable to all human beings, while the current verse is particularly about a great prophet like Moses. The similarity is that both of them refer to the same type of knowledge, which is an inner experience of the divine through our pristine nature and original intuition (fiṭrah). (Trans.) ↩︎

15. An averting evidence (qarīnah ṣārifah) indicates that a term is used figuratively, not literally. A determining evidence (qarīnah muʿayyanah) indicates which homonym is meant—not figuratively, but literally. The question here is whether the literal meaning of “seeing” is restricted to eyesight, or it also includes inner insight. In the first case, the surrounding evidence (qarāʾin) in the verses would be averting, indicating that “seeing” is used in its figurative meaning of inner insight, as opposed to its literal meaning of eyesight. In the second case, the evidence would be determining, showing that the second literal meaning of the term is intended. (Trans.) ↩︎

16. For further Qur’anic examples of a “qualified never” see verses , , , , , , , . (Trans.) ↩︎

17. See volume 8 (1st ed.), pp. 61ff of the English translation, under verses . (Trans.) ↩︎

18. That is: “I gave priority to you over the people when it came to choosing someone.” Another possible explanation is that the preposition ʿalá (over, on, above) is used to indicate authority: “I chose you as a leader and head over the people.” (Trans.) ↩︎

19. See volume 4 (1st ed.), pp. 123ff of the English translation, under verse . Also see verse . (Trans.) ↩︎

20. See volume 10 (1st ed.), pp. 191-192 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

21. “Undue aggression” is mentioned in verse . See the author’s exposition of the verse in volume 15 of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

22. The meaning would be: “I divert them from My signs because of denying Our signs and being heedless of them.” (Trans.) ↩︎

23. See verses . (Trans.) ↩︎

24. Suqiṭa follows the basic verbal pattern faʿala, while usqiṭa follows the specifically transitive verbal pattern ifʿāl. Both suqiṭa and usqiṭa are in the passive voice, which is transitive by construction. (Trans.) ↩︎

25. This specifically pertains to the last part of the quote from Majmaʿ al-bayān. (Trans.) ↩︎

26. Apparently what the author means is that the two prayers are not of the same kind and at the same level. While Moses and Aaron were innocent, the Israelites were not. If one prayer were juxtaposed with the other, this point would be missed. (Trans.) ↩︎

27. A ṣifah mushabbahah (also called ṣifah mushbihah) is an adjective that is similar to an active participle. It serves as an adjective, and indicates the establishment, subsistence, and strength of a quality in the subject. In this case it means “very upset and incensed.” (Trans.) ↩︎

28. An “authoritative command” (al-amr al-mawlawī) is like the command of a master to a servant, where the servant would be sinful for disobeying. An “advisory command” (al-amr al-irshādī) is like a doctor’s prescription for a patient. If the patient violates it, it may have painful consequences for the patient, but it does not count as “sin.” (Trans.) ↩︎

29. See volume 12 (1st ed.), pp. 195ff of the English translation, under verses . (Trans.) ↩︎

30. Apparently the author is referring to the argument that God’s rewards and punishments are not haphazard, but they are according to one’s capacity and receptivity, which are in turn determined by one’s beliefs, actions and realizations. (Trans.) ↩︎

31. See volume 8 (1st ed.), pp. 52ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

32. These two expressions refer to God in the third person, which indicates a digression and a change of address. (Trans.) ↩︎

33. The verb in this expression is in the present tense, which indicates that the verses are about an ongoing state of affairs. (Trans.) ↩︎

34. In this case it means: “Those who take guard against God’s wrath fearfully, and restrain themselves reverently from displeasing their Lord.” (Trans.) ↩︎

35. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Shaybah, Aḥmad, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎

36. Al-Durr al-manthūr, via other chains of narration, on the authority of ʿAbd-Allāh b. ʿAwf, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather. ↩︎

37. This was the title of the head of the Jewish rabbis. (Trans.) ↩︎

38. The elegance of this expression is remarkable. Yet, it should not be taken literally, since the Qur’an explicitly says that Moses opened a dry path through the sea (). This supports the view that the language of the scripture is symbolic and figurative more often than not. (Trans.) ↩︎

39. Tafsīr al-burhān, on the authority of Muḥammad b. Shahr-Āshūb. ↩︎

40. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of al-Fuḍayl b. Yasār. ↩︎

41. Some versions say: “Glory be to God! I am not capable of [describing] it.” (Trans.) ↩︎

42. There are clear transcription errors in this part of the narration. The translation reflects the most plausible version. Another somewhat plausible version says: “Imagine the sounds of thunderbolts which would kill you in the sweetest manner possible if you were to hear them.” The juxtaposition of a few words with two or more orthographical variations can produce a wide range of different meanings (and no-meanings). In this case, it is only a matter of where the dots are placed. (Trans.) ↩︎

43. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Bazzāz, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū Nuʿaym’s Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ, and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Asmāʾ wa al-ṣifāt. ↩︎

44. Tafsīr al-burhān, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

45. An alternative translation is: “Moses asked this, and praise is due to God for what flowed on his tongue.” (Trans.) ↩︎

46. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

47. These points are arranged in a different order in the original text, but they were rearranged here to make the discussion easier to follow. (Trans.) ↩︎

48. Substance (jawhar) and accident (ʿaraḍī) are two main sub-categories of quiddity (māhiyyah), as discussed in Islamic and Peripatetic metaphysics. See my first footnote under the section titled “The Greatest Name of God (al-Ism al-Aʿẓam)” below. (Trans.) ↩︎

49. Al-ʿUyūn (paraphrased). ↩︎

50. See volume 1, pp. 246-247 of the English translation, under verses . (Trans.) ↩︎

51. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd, al-Tirmidhī (who has authenticated it), Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn ʿAdī’s al-Kāmil, Abū al-Shaykh, al-Ḥākim (who has authenticated it), Ibn Mardawayh and al-Bayhaqī’s al-Ruʾyah, on the authority of Anas b. Mālik. ↩︎

52. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Thābit, on the authority of Anas b. Mālik. ↩︎

53. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s Nawādir al-uṣūl, and Abū Nuʿaym’s Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎

54. See hadith 6 above, and the author’s subsequent comment. (Trans.) ↩︎

55. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎

56. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎

57. That is, they are among the first beings that God created. (Trans.) ↩︎

58. Baṣāʾir al-darajāt, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd-Allāh b. Abī ʿAbd-Allāh al-Fārsī and others, via an unconnected chain of transmission (marfūʿ). ↩︎

59. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh and al-Ḥākim (who has authenticated it), on the authority of Anas. ↩︎

60. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Anas. ↩︎

61. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Abū Nuʿaym’s Ḥilyat al-awliyāʾ, on the authority of Muʿāwiyah b. Qurrah, on the authority of his father. This is also narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Anas. ↩︎

62. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Awsaṭ, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎

63. There is no citation for the next five items since they are part of the author’s comments, not direct quotes from books of hadith. (Trans.) ↩︎

64. Rūḥ al-maʿānī. ↩︎

65. There is an Arabic proverb, “News is not like seeing first-hand” (laysa al-khabar kal-muʿāyanah). An equivalent Persian proverb says, “Would hearing ever amount to seeing?” A Chinese proverb, which has gained some popularity in English, says: “Hearing a hundred times is not as good as seeing once.” Perhaps the closest English expression for this is: “Seeing is believing.” (Trans.) ↩︎

66. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd, al-Bazzāz, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn Ḥabbān, al-Ṭabarānī, Abū al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās. ↩︎

67. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Muḥammad b. Abī Ḥamzah, on the authority of someone that he named. ↩︎

68. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Sufyān b. ʿUyaynah, on the authority of al-Suddī. ↩︎

69. Al-Tawḥīd and al-Amālī, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

70. See volume 11 (1st ed.), pp. 110ff of the English translation. (Trans.) ↩︎

71. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, as a part of a longer hadith about tawḥīd. ↩︎

72. In other words, our common learning is not actively present with us unless we pay attention to it. (Trans.) ↩︎

73. Given the context of “maintenance” in this hadith, “shadow” has also been interpreted as “support,” in the sense of an ontological cause that supports the existence of something. A cause is called a shadow not signifying its inferiority or weakness, but indicating its inseparability from the effect. This can be traced to the meaning of the root ẓ-l-l. (Trans.) ↩︎

74. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ḥanafī and ʿUqbah. God-willing we shall present this hadith under the verse: but they were not to believe in what they had disbelieved in before (). ↩︎

75. Apparently the author is referring to verse . The same idea is found in verse . (Trans.) ↩︎

76. Al-Irshād. This is also narrated in other books. ↩︎

77. Nahj al-balāghah. ↩︎

78. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

79. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, as a part of a longer hadith about tawḥīd. The same idea is also narrated from Imam al-Riḍā, in al-Tawḥīd and ʿIlal al-sharāʾiʿ. ↩︎

80. The author has interpreted maḥjūb (veiled) as ḥājib (veiling), and mastūr (covered) as sātir (covering). In other words, the accusative case (based on the verbal pattern mafʿūl) is taken to imply the nominative case (based on the verbal pattern fāʿil). (Trans.) ↩︎

81. This is the definition of consciousness: to have knowledge of knowledge; to be aware of any feeling, thought or sensation that one experiences. (Trans.) ↩︎

82. Al-Tawḥīd. ↩︎

83. ʿIlal al-sharāʾiʿ, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

84. Al-Maḥāsin, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

85. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, as a part of a longer hadith. ↩︎

86. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration. ↩︎

87. Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Aʿlá Mawlá Āl-i Sām, as a part of a longer hadith. ↩︎

88. This sense of knowledge can be translated as “consciousness.” This confirms the view that an essential aspect of the Absolute is a consciousness principle (Sanskrit chit) that pervades all beings. (Trans.) ↩︎

89. In other words, God is there with anything that is to be found, whether in the external world or in the mind. No created entity can exist alone and separate from God, because without the Cause, the effect would vanish. (Trans.) ↩︎

90. Thus all created beings are stripped of oneness, because they are composed of māhiyyah (quiddity, whatness) and wujūd (existence, being). (Trans.) ↩︎