Verses 22–40

Chapter 16: Al-Nahl (The Bee) · Printed edition: Volume 24, pp. 38–77

This section contains the second part of the chapter’s opening verses. The first part encompassed a declaration of the oneness of God’s lordship and established the argument against the polytheists in this regard, warning them of impending divine punishment and exalting the sanctity of God beyond their association of partners with Him.

The second part follows on from this by calling attention to the negative traits and moral failings of the polytheists, all of which are shown to stem from their denial of monotheism: This includes their fallacious arguments, their arrogance before God, their mockery of His signs, and their denial of the Resurrection. It them proceeds to deliver a refutation of these beliefs and a threat of worldly punishment, warning them of the torment on the day that they die and the day they are resurrected. It expounds other realities still, which we will make clear in the discussion below.

Commentary

إِلَهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ فَالَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالآخِرَةِ قُلُوبُهُم مُّنكِرَةٌ وَهُم مُّسْتَكْبِرُونَ ٢٢

(16:22) Your God is One God. Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, their hearts are amiss, and they are arrogant.

As we have already discussed previously, this verse follows as a logical consequence of the arguments laid out in the verses of the preceding section.

The phrase, Those who do not believe in the Hereafter … follows on from that same statement and initiates a new topic of discussion regarding the conduct and speech of the disbelievers and the behaviors of theirs that arise from their disbelief in God. Although the text does not explicitly mention disbelief in God but rather disbelief in the Day of Judgment, this is because the aforementioned argument was a testament to complete monotheism, which entails the obligation to believe in an all-knowing, omnipotent deity who created all beings and bestowed blessings upon them not in vain or in falsehood, but in truth, so that they may eventually return to Him to be judged and rewarded or punished according to the commands and prohibitions communicated by His messengers.

Therefore, the monotheism demonstrated by the arguments of the previous verses refers to belief in the oneness of God Almighty, belief in what His messengers have brought, and belief in the Day of Reckoning. Hence, in these very verses, a disbeliever is defined as one who does not believe in the Day of Judgment, because belief in this day implies belief in the oneness of God and in the missions of His messengers.

For a more detailed understanding of what we have discussed here, readers can refer to our commentary on the initial verses of the chapter that states: He sends down the angels with the Spirit of His command to whomever He wishes of His servants: ‘Warn the people that there is no god except Me; so be wary of Me.’ He created the heavens and the earth in truth. He is above having any partners that they ascribe to Him. Therefore, this verse covers the three fundamental doctrinal beliefs.

… their hearts are amiss (munkira) means that their hearts deny the truth.

… and they are arrogant (mustakbirūn) indicates that they display disdain toward the truth. Arrogance (istikbār)—as has been said—refers to when someone refuses to accept the truth to appear powerful, considering themselves too important to submit to it.

The meaning of the verse is that your deity is One, and clear signs point to this. When the matter is of such clarity, nothing can conceal it and it leaves no room for doubt. Hence, those who do not believe in the day of judgment have hearts that deny the truth, showing animosity and obstinacy toward it, trying through their stubbornness to present themselves as greater than the truth without any evidence or argument to justify their rebellion against it.

لاَ جَرَمَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا يُسِرُّونَ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ إِنَّهُ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُسْتَكْبِرِينَ٢٣

(16:23) Undoubtedly (lā jarama), Allah knows whatever they hide and whatever they disclose. Indeed He does not like the arrogant.

The phrase lā jaram is a composite expression used in the same sense in all situations. As mentioned by lexicographers such as Khalīl and Sībawayh, it conveys the meaning of being certain about something. Definitions provided by other scholars essentially align with that of Khalīl and Sībawayh, despite some disagreement over its composite nature. Khalīl has asserted that this word is used for emphasizing certainty and is only used in response to a statement. For example, in response to someone saying, ‘They have done such and such,’ one would reply, ‘Undoubtedly (lā jarama), they will regret it.’

The essence of the verse is that God Almighty is fully aware of what individuals conceal and what they reveal to others. This expression carries an implicit warning of stern retribution, signifying that God is cognizant of all their actions, whether done in secrecy or openly. He will inevitably bring them to account and administer punishment for their disbelief and haughtiness. This is because God holds no affection for those who are arrogant.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُم مَّاذَا أَنزَلَ رَبُّكُمْ قَالُواْ أَسَاطِيرُ الأَوَّلِينَ ٢٤

(16:24) When they are told, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’ They say, ‘Myths of the ancients (asāṭīr al-awwalīn),’

Asāṭīr is the plural of saṭr or saṭar, which Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says in his Mufradāt refers to lines of writing on a page, lines of people planted in rows, or lines of people standing in ranks. Its plural can be suṭur, asaṭir, suṭūr, or asāṭīr.

As for the phrase asāṭīr al-awwalīn, al-Mubarrad says that asāṭīr here is the plural of usṭūra (‘myth’) in the same way that the word arājīḥ is the plural of arjūḥa (‘swing’), athāfī is the plural of athfiya (‘tripod’), and aḥadīth s the plural of aḥdūtha (‘speech;).

Therefore, the term asāṭīr al-awwalīn refers to writings full of legends and superstitions that their adherents mistakenly held sacred, as God Almighty indicated when He quoted the disbelievers referring to the Qurʾan as: ‘myths of the ancients, and they are dictated to him morning and evening’ (). This is al-Mubarrad’s explanation, while others have suggested that asāṭīr is the plural of asṭār, which as we mentioned, is also the plural of saṭr, meaning ‘line’, and making the word asāṭīr a plural of plurals.

In the phrase, When they are told, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’, it is possible that the inquirer was one of the believers, who posed this question to the disbelievers to test them and discover their views on the mission of the Prophet. It is also conceivable that the speaker was one of the idol worshipers who asked this question of others in mockery of the believers. Alternatively, it might have been a confused individual genuinely questioning the authenticity of the Prophetic mission. The subsequent verse, as well as the verse, But to those who were Godwary it will be said, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’, seem to support one of the latter two readings.

They say, ‘Myths of the ancients,’—this refers to the matter about which they are questioned, meaning it consists of falsehoods and superstitions written down and recorded by the forebears, left for future generations, and this answer implies that the Qurʾan has not been revealed by God almighty, but is rather the work of human hands.

لِيَحْمِلُواْ أَوْزَارَهُمْ كَامِلَةً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَمِنْ أَوْزَارِ الَّذِينَ يُضِلُّونَهُم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ أَلاَ سَاء مَا يَزِرُونَ ٢٥

(16:25) that they may bear their entire burdens (awzār) on the Day of Resurrection, along with some of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without any knowledge. Look! Evil is what they bear!

In his Mufradāt, al-Rāghib explains: ‘The word wazr means a refuge or shelter, such as a mountain, to which people can flee for safety during dangerous times, just as God has said elsewhere: No indeed! There is no refuge (wazr)! That day the abode will be toward your Lord. Conversely, the word wizr, of which awzār is a plural, means a heavy burden. This is because it compares a burden to the weight of a mountain. Hence why sins are called awzār, just as they are called athqāl (‘loads’). For example, see the verse, that they may bear their entire burdens (awzār) on the Day of Resurrection (), and But surely they will carry their own loads and other loads along with their own loads ().’

He continues: ‘Bearing the burdens of others is, in reality, akin to what the Prophet Muḥammad explained in the tradition: “Whoever establishes a good practice in Islam, earns the reward of it and the reward of anyone who acts upon it thereafter, without their reward being diminished in any way. And whoever establishes a bad practice in Islam, bears its burden and the burden of anyone who acts upon it.” The meaning of the tradition is: “whoever initiates a good practice and accustoms people to it, shall earn the reward for that act and also the like of the reward of everyone who performs it thereafter, without diminishing the reward of those who act upon it; and whoever initiates a bad practice, shall bear the burden of that act as well as the like of the burden of everyone who acts upon it.”’

In the tradition, the word ‘like’ is understood implicitly from the context, meaning that they shall receive a reward or punishment equivalent to that received by subsequent doers of the same deed, without diminishing either. This resolves the apparent contradiction between verses such as that they may bear their entire burdens ... along with some of the burdens of those whom they lead astray, with verses such as: No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another (). This is because the latter first verse speaks of bearing the burden in such a way that the original bearer is absolved of it, with another completely shouldering that load.

The tradition cited from the Prophet is transmitted through both Shiʿi and Sunni chains of narration and is also confirmed by the Qurʾan itself. For example, it states: The faithful and their descendants who followed them in faith—We will make their descendants join them, and We will not stint anything from (the reward of) their deeds. Every man is a hostage to what he has earned (). It also states: Indeed it is We who revive the dead and write what they have sent ahead and their effects which they left behind (), and there are many verses that convey this meaning.

As for the explanation of the Prophet’s statement, ‘shall bear its burden and the burden of anyone who acts upon it’ the consideration of the word ‘like’ as understood implicitly is not a bad point in terms of its literal and apparent meaning, and it serves to resolve any apparent contradictions between these narrations and verses such as No bearer shall bear another’s burden (), and others like Your Lord will indeed recompense everyone fully for their works (). If we say the initiator of a bad precedent bears the entire burden of those who act upon it, and the actors themselves are not responsible, we contradict the first verse. If we say the initiator and the actors share the burden, we contradict the second verse. However, if we say the initiator and the one who gives the command bears a burden ‘like’ that of the actor, we have not contradicted either of these verses cited here.

This is the interpretation based on the literal and apparent meanings of the verses. But in terms of reality, we must say that just as an action, whether good or bad, is one action and does not duplicate, so too should the burden and punishment be one and not multiple. However, what happens is that sometimes the action itself, since it is based on more than one person—the relationship between the encouragement to perform the action by the one who bids someone to do a deed and the doer of the deed is actually horizontal and not vertical, which could cause confusion—inevitably, the burden and punishment will also rest on more than one person. Thus, in reality, in the issue of performing an ugly act, there is no more than one burden and more than one punishment. What happens is that with this one punishment, two people are punished: one the doer of the deed and one who told them to do it.

To further clarify the meaning of this concept, one needs only to pay close attention to the verses that deal with the personification of deeds. In doing so, we observe that an act, let’s say an ugly one, when personified, takes on a singular personal form, yet it torments more than one person and manifests for more than one person—both the one who bid someone else to perform an act and caused them to do it, as well as the doer and agent of the act. Thus, the matter could be analogously understood as something that is imagined by two people who both suffer or enjoy because of their perception of it.

We previously discussed some aspects of this in our commentary one the verse so that Allah may separate the bad ones from the good and a detailed discussion of this will follow.

In any case, in the phrase … that they may bear (li-yaḥmilū) their entire burdens on the Day of Resurrection, the preposition lām is to indicate purpose, and it is connected to the prior phrase, They say, ‘Myths of the ancients.’

The clause, whom they lead astray, indicates that the bearing of others’ burdens was because they misguided them, and the consequence of misguiding them is that they bear a share of their burdens. The implied meaning of the statement is: They said, “these are myths of the ancients”, in order to mislead them, and they themselves were misguided, bearing not only the burdens of their own sins but also those whom they misguided without knowledge.

The reason why (the clause,) that they may bear their entire burdens, is specified with the clause ‘entire’ is in order to prevent the mistaken assumption that they carry only some of their own sins and some of the sins of those they have misled, rather than all of their own burdens and all of those of the misled.

In the phrase along with some of (min) the burdens of those whom they lead astray —the word min (some of) is to signify partition, because those who mislead others do not carry all the burdens of those they have misled; rather, they only carry those burdens that are the result of their misguidance. The context itself attests to this reading. Hence, the use of the preposition min is to distinguish between the sins and burdens result from misguidance and those that do not, not to imply that some of the burdens resulting from misguidance are attributed to the misleaders and some to the misled, or to suggest a division of the entire burden of misguidance among various parties. As this would conflict with verses like ‘and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it (), which emphasize an individual’s accountability for their own actions, so reflect on this.

From the foregoing discussion, it has become clear that the explanation some commentators have offered for the phrase that they may bear their entire burdens on the Day of Resurrection is not accurate or acceptable: They argue that this means none of their sins can be diminished and that such sins are not susceptible to expiation through suffering the tribulations of worldly life or through accepted acts of obedience that serve as atonement for the believers’ sins.

Likewise, the reading advanced by some other scholars, that the verse in question implies that God Almighty annuls some punishments for the believers and considers mitigation for them, is also not correct. If there was no distinction between believers and non-believers, there would be no reason to specify that the disbelievers alone are those whose sins are not amenable to mitigation.

The reason these two readings are not acceptable is that although the disgrace of disbelievers and the dignity of believers are indeed preserved in their respective places, as indicated by the verses pointing to the humiliation of disbelievers through worldly punishments and the nullification of their deeds, and similarly, verses indicating divine intercession on behalf some believers, the verse under discussion does not consider this aspect. The verse’s sole focus is on the distinction between the burdens borne by those led astray by disbelievers and the burdens resulting from the disbelievers’ own involvement in misguidance. It intends to convey that those who have been led astray by disbelievers will carry the weight of their own actions, while the those who led them astray will bear only those burdens which are a consequence of their own misleading actions. The weakest among the previously mentioned explanations is the one suggested by some, stating that the preposition min in along with some of (min) the burdens of those whom they lead astray is superfluous or explanatory. The baselessness of this claim will be obvious to the discerning reader.

Note also that the phrase, …whom they led astray is qualified by the phrase … without any knowledge (bi ghayr ʿilm). This is to indicate that those who were misled by the polytheists and deceived by their claim that the prophets’ messages were nothing more than ‘myths of the ancients,’ were misled without any evidence and followed them without proof. Hence, those who uttered this claim were leaders of misguidance, and the misled were their imitators and followers. In censure and condemnation of both groups, God states: Look! Evil is what they bear!

قَدْ مَكَرَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَأَتَى اللَّهُ بُنْيَانَهُم مِّنَ الْقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّقْفُ مِن فَوْقِهِمْ وَأَتَاهُمُ الْعَذَابُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لاَ يَشْعُرُونَ ٢٦

(16:26) Those who were before them had also schemed. Then Allah razed their edifice from the foundations and the roof collapsed upon them from above and the punishment overtook them whence they were not aware.

When God says that He razed their edifice from their foundations, this means that God’s edict, which had not yet come forth, was issued. This expression is common in Arabic parlance, and the phrase, the roof collapsed upon them meant that it fell down in utter ruin.

As the context suggests, the phrase Then Allah razed their edifice from the foundations and the roof collapsed upon them from above appears to be a metaphor for nullifying their plots and exposing their deceptions in a way they did not anticipate. It is like one who fears an attack from the front and is fully alert in that direction, but suddenly the enemy strikes them from behind. Likewise, God demolishes the foundation of their scheming, while they are focused on protecting the upper part—the roof—only to find that the roof has collapsed upon them. However, it is not that they have dismantled the roof, but rather the foundation has been removed from beneath it.

Therefore, the sentence, and the punishment overtook them whence they were not aware, serves as an explanatory addition to Then Allah razed their edifice, with the mentioned punishment being of a worldly nature.

This verse warns the idol worshipers, who were scheming against God and His Messenger, by reminding them of how God dealt with previous schemers and what befell rebellious nations in the past—how He turned their own schemes against them.

ثُمَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُخْزِيهِمْ وَيَقُولُ أَيْنَ شُرَكَائِيَ الَّذِينَ كُنتُمْ تُشَاقُّونَ فِيهِمْ قَالَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْعِلْمَ إِنَّ الْخِزْيَ الْيَوْمَ وَالْسُّوءَ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ ٢٧

(16:27) Then He will disgrace them (yukhzī-him) on the Day of Resurrection, and say, ‘Where are My partners for whose sake you used to differ (tushāqqūn fī-him)?’ Those who were given knowledge will say, ‘Indeed today disgrace and distress pursue the faithless.’

The phrase yukhzī-him (‘He will disgrace them’) comes from khizy, which, according to al-Rāghib, refers to a disgrace that causes its bearer to feel ashamed. The term tushāqqūn comes from ‘shaqq,’ which literally means to cut or separate a part of something, and figuratively, it refers to disputing with and showing hostility toward someone with whom there should be no dispute, instead there should be friendship and agreement. Hence, the polytheists’ dissent regarding their so-called partners means their disagreement with the people of monotheism, even though they are a single community created by God upon the nature of monotheism and the true religion. These dissenters argue with the believers and separate themselves from them. The verse means that God Almighty will soon subject them to a shameful punishment on the Day of Judgment and will ask them: ‘Where are those partners of Mine over whom you used to disagree with the people of the truth, causing division in the natural religion?’

Those who were given knowledge will say, ‘Indeed today disgrace and distress pursue the faithless’—The context of this phrase indicates that by disgrace (khizy), it means the humiliation of their position combined with the severity of their punishment. Those whom God has described as being endowed with knowledge, and whom He informs us will declare such things on the Day of Judgment, are indeed the ones who have acquired knowledge of the oneness of God and to whom the reality of monotheism has been unveiled. This knowledge is consistent with the context of the verse since it confronts the error of the polytheists. The error of the polytheists is what will become apparent to them on the Day of Judgment, as it will be revealed that what they worshiped in the world were merely empty names they had assigned to non-existent things and mirages they had mistaken for water.

Other Qurʾanic verses also corroborate this interpretation. For the verse under discussion says: On the Day of Resurrection … Those who were given knowledge will say … Elsewhere, describing that same Day, it states: None shall speak except whom the All-beneficent permits and who says what is right (). From this, it is understood that only the one who is protected from error, vain talk, and falsehood can speak rightly. One is safeguarded from speaking falsehood only if he is also preserved from acting upon falsehood in his deeds. Thus, they must be individuals who see nothing but the truth, engage in nothing but the truth, and speak nothing but the truth.

If you argue: that understanding the phrase Those who were given knowledge refers as referring solely to the Infallibles is confounded by other instances, where this expression in the Qurʾan is also used for those who are not infallible. For example, consider the following verses: Those who were given knowledge said, ‘Woe to you! Allah’s reward is better …’ (); That those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord, and so they may have faith in it … ().

And there are other instances besides these in which the expression clearly pertains to those who are not infallible.

Our response to this is as follows: What we have said with regards to the present verse is an understanding that has been derived with the help of context, not that the term ‘those who have been given knowledge’ exclusively denotes the infallible, necessitating that wherever this expression appears in the Qur’an, it must convey that meaning.

As for the assertion that the term Those who were given knowledge refers only to the prophets, or to prophets and certain believers who became knowledgeable about the signs of monotheism in this world, or that it refers solely to the believers or to the angels, these are statements for which the verse provides no evidence whatsoever.

الَّذِينَ تَتَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنفُسِهِمْ فَأَلْقَوُاْ السَّلَمَ مَا كُنَّا نَعْمَلُ مِن سُوءٍ بَلَى إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ ٢٨

(16:28) Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves. Thereat they offer submission (fa alqaw al-salam): ‘We were not doing any evil!’ ‘Yes, indeed Allah knows best what you used to do!

It appears that the sentence ‘Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves …’ is an exposition of the term ‘faithless’ (kāfirīn) at the end of the previous verse. Conversely, the forthcoming statement, those whom the angels take away while they are pure () explains the term ‘the Godwary’ (muttaqīn) that appears at the end of the verse immediately in front of it. And just because we are saying that this verse explains the term ‘disbelievers’, it does not follow that it is part of the statement ‘those who have been given knowledge’, such that one might argue that it disrupts the flow of the passage. This is because it would be required that those referred to in ‘those who have been given knowledge’ should have first stated that disgrace and misfortune are upon the disbelievers today, and then, instead of speaking about the disbelievers with the phrase ‘Those whom the angels take’, they would have used a different term.

The word salam in the phrase fa alqaw al-salam (‘they offer submission’) means surrender, humility, and obedience; the pronoun ‘they’ refers back to the disbelievers. The verse’s meaning is that the disbelievers are those whom the angels take their souls at a time when they are engrossed in their own oppression and disbelief. Suddenly, they submit and show humility, pretending as if they have not committed any vile acts. Yet, at the moment of death, their claims are rejected and refuted, and it is declared to them: ‘On the contrary! You did do such and such, but God was aware of what you were doing before you fell into this pit, that is, death.’

فَادْخُلُواْ أَبْوَابَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا فَلَبِئْسَ مَثْوَى الْمُتَكَبِّرِينَ ٢٩

(16:29) Enter the gates of hell to remain in it forever. Evil is the final abode of the arrogant (mutakabbirīn).’

In this verse, like the previous verse ‘Indeed today disgrace and distress pursue the faithless.’ (), and in the verse those whom the angels take away (), the speech is directed to all the disbelievers collectively, not to each individually. Therefore, the meaning of the verse under discussion devolves to the following: ‘Each of you will enter through a gate of Hell that befits your sins’, not that each of you will enter through all the gates of Hell or from several of them; as to say this would not convey the correct meaning for the verse. We have already discussed the meaning of Hell having multiple gates in the exegesis of the verse It has seven gates, and to each gate belongs a separate portion of them ().

The term mutakabbirīn (‘arrogant’) is more or less identical in meaning with mustakbirīn, even if their literal forms are somewhat distinct and each are used in subtly different contexts, in the same manner as muslim and mustaslim (both mean ‘one who surrenders’): Hence, the mustakbir is one who seeks to aggrandize himself and desires to bring this out of a potential state and into a real one to display it to others, while the mutakabbir is one who has adopted arrogance as a trait and made it a part of their personality.

وَقِيلَ لِلَّذِينَ اتَّقَوْا مَاذَا أَنزَلَ رَبُّكُمْ قَالُواْ خَيْرًا لِّلَّذِينَ أَحْسَنُواْ فِي هَذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةٌ وَلَدَارُ الآخِرَةِ خَيْرٌ وَلَنِعْمَ دَارُ الْمُتَّقِينَ ٣٠

(16:30) But to those who were Godwary (alladhīna ittaqū) it will be said, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’ They will say, ‘Good.’ For those who do good in this world there will be a good reward, and the abode of the Hereafter is better, and the abode of the Godwary is surely excellent:

In this verse, the people who were characterized by piety and Godwariness in the life of this world are questioned. The reason why God uses the verbal construction alladhīna ittaqū ( ‘those who were Godwary’) here is that they possessed this attribute continuously. By contrast, both at the end of this verse and in the next verse, God refers to them with the active participle muttaqīn (‘the Godwary’), which suggests a broader application of the term than alladhīna ittaqū. Therefore, it can be said those who will be questioned among the pious in this verse are those who are the best in piety and faith, just as those who were questioned among the other group in the previous verse were the most wicked and complete in disbelief.

Thus, the claim by some commentators that the term refers to all believers who have avoided idolatry or, at most, have abstained from certain sins is not correct.

The response from those who are questioned about what they Lord has sent down is ‘good’ (khayr), meaning: ‘He has sent down goodness.’ This is because He has sent down the Qurʾan, which contains the knowledge and laws necessary to attain happiness in this world and the hereafter. In saying ‘good’, they acknowledge two things: one, that the Qurʾan is indeed a message sent down by God, and two, that it contains in its verses the keys to the happiness of humanity in both this world and the next. And in this acknowledgment, they also respond to their opponents (the arrogant ones), who had dismissed it as mere legends. And if the word ‘good’ had been made to follow the word ‘sent down’ it would not have conveyed these points, meaning it would not have constituted an acknowledgment of divine revelation.

Therefore, just as if the unbelievers answered the very same question by saying: ‘myths of the ancients’ (), the believers answer it by saying that God has sent down goodness to humankind. Note, however, that even the response of the disbelievers hints at an acknowledgment that this is something that has been sent down by God—at least according to some commentators.

From the apparent context of this passage, it emerges that the phrase, For those who do good in this world there will be a good reward, and the abode of the Hereafter is better, and the abode of the Godwary is surely excellent, is an explanation of the response of the Godwary in the previous verse when they said that their Lord had sent down goodness.

Now, the question is whether this explanation comes from the respondents themselves and therefore represents a continuation of their answer, or is it an utterance from God Almighty? It seems that when He says: ‘and the abode of the Godwary is surely excellent: the Gardens of Eden … () this is meant as the direct speech of God Almighty. It is as if He wishes to elaborate on the answer of the righteous and explain the value of the Qurʾan and the message it contains. This is because, in its style of expression, the aforementioned statement is closer to the tone of the Lord of mankind than that of His servants, especially those servants whom God has praised for their piety, for the pious do not dare to assign to themselves the destiny of dwelling the gardens of eternity.

The phrase ‘a good reward’ refers to a dignified recompense. Indeed, the Godwary, due to the good they do in compliance with the Qurʾan’s commandments, form a righteous community that is governed by justice and benevolence, a life that is established on human flourishing and happiness. As a result, they also enjoy a good life in this world, as indicated by the phrase ‘in this world,’ and it is evident that the life of the hereafter is even better for such people, for its joy is everlasting, and its blessings are not mixed with affliction, nor is its contentment followed by disappointment.

Therefore, the full meaning of the verse is that the faithful were asked: ‘What has your Lord revealed? And how was what He revealed?’ They answered: ‘He has sent down goodness, for there is a good reward for those who do good—meaning those who follow the instructions of the divine scripture, and this expression indicates that the said book commands goodness and benevolence toward others—in this world, and a better reward in the hereafter.’

Then, at the end, God praises them to affirm the statement, saying: ‘And how excellent is the abode of the Godwary.’ Then, He elaborates once again, indicating that their home is:

جَنَّاتُ عَدْنٍ يَدْخُلُونَهَا تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ لَهُمْ فِيهَا مَا يَشَاؤُونَ كَذَلِكَ يَجْزِي اللَّهُ الْمُتَّقِينَ ٣١ الَّذِينَ تَتَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلائِكَةُ طَيِّبِينَ يَقُولُونَ سَلامٌ عَلَيْكُمُ ادْخُلُواْ الْجَنَّةَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ ٣٢

(16:31–32) The Gardens of Eden, which they will enter, with streams running in them. There they will have whatever they wish, and thus does Allah reward the Godwary—those whom the angels take away while they are pure. They say to them, ‘Peace be to you! Enter paradise because of what you used to do.’

The above verse describes the state of the Godwary at the moment of their death, revealing the kind of individuals they are, in the same way that another verse, —Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves (), elucidates the state of the arrogant. The term ‘pure’ (ṭayyib) signifies the absence of any contamination that might sully or pollute something, diminishing its purity. One might say ṭāba lī al-ʿaysh (‘life has become pure for me’, where the word ṭāba is a cognate of ṭayyib), meaning that it has been cleansed of everything that could cause trouble or cause it to become distasteful. A qawlun ṭayyibun (‘pure speech’) is one that is free from frivolity, ridicule, harshness, and other such impurities.

The difference between ṭayyib and ṭāhir (both of which can mean ‘pure’) is that ṭāhir denotes being in a state of original purity, devoid of anything that could be a source of revulsion or disgust toward it. By contrast, ṭayyib means being in a pure and original state, free from any element that could sully or spoil it, regardless of whether this induces an aversion to it or not. Consequently, ṭayyib is often contrasted with khabīth (‘foul’, ‘vicious’), which describes a thing that comprises undesirable elements beyond its original essence. In the Qurʾan, it is stated: Vicious women are for vicious men, and vicious men for vicious women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women (), and also: The good land (al-balad al-ṭayyib)—its vegetation comes out by the permission of its Lord, and as for that which is bad (alladhī khabutha), it does not come out except sparsely ().

Thus, the purity of the Godwary at the time of their death refers to their being free from the impurity of wrongdoing, contrasting with the arrogant who are described as being in a state of wronging themselves at the time of death, as stated: Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves ().

The meaning of the verse thus becomes: ‘The Godwary are those whom the angels take their souls at death while they are free from the impurities of wrongdoing —such as idolatry and other sins —and to them they say ‘peace be to you!’ —a statement reassuring them of their safety —‘enter Paradise because of what you used to do,’ guiding them thereby to Paradise.

As you can see, this verse describes the Godwary as being pure and free from the contamination of wrongdoing, promising them security and guidance toward Paradise. Therefore, the meaning devolves to that of the verse which says: Those who have faith and do not taint their faith with wrongdoing—for such there shall be safety, and they are the guided ().

Some commentators have said that ṭayyib in the present verse means purity from the filth of idolatry. Others have explained it as referring to purity in speech and action. However, the majority of commentators are inclined to read it as denoting purification from the defilement of sins in general. And you, dear reader, upon careful consideration of what we have mentioned above, will understand that none of these interpretations is without its deficiencies.

Various commentators have suggested different meanings for the term ‘ṭayyib’ in this verse. Some believe it signifies being free from the impurities of idol worship, while others interpret it as representing cleanliness in one’s words and deeds. However, the predominant view among commentators is that it implies a broader purification from all forms of sin. Yet, as you, the discerning reader, might gather from our previous discussions, each of these interpretations carries its own deficiencies.

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَن تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْمَلائِكَةُ أَوْ يَأْتِيَ أَمْرُ رَبِّكَ كَذَلِكَ فَعَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَمَا ظَلَمَهُمُ اللَّهُ وَلَكِن كَانُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ ٣٣

(16:33) Do they await anything but that the angels should come to them, or your Lord’s edict should come? Those who were before them had acted likewise; Allah did not wrong them, but they used to wrong themselves.

Here the discourse reverts to the narrative of the arrogant idolaters, recounting some of their words and deeds and comparing their situation with the transgressors from past nations.

Do they await anything but that the angels should come to them, or your Lord’s edict should come? —The tone of the verse, especially the story of the torment mentioned in the following verse, is evidently that of a threat. Hence, the meaning of the angels’ coming is their descent to deliver a devastating and ruinous punishment to the disbelievers. In summary, it is in the position of explaining a matter similar to what verses like We do not send down the angels except with due reason, and then they will not be granted any respite () are explaining. And the intended meaning of the coming of your Lord’s edict is the setting in of the Day of Resurrection and the divine judgment and retribution upon them.

The passage suggests that the coming God’s edict, as mentioned at the beginning of the chapter with the phrase Allah’s edict is coming, could possibly refer to the coming of divine aid and the triumph of Islam over idolatry. However, this reading is rather weak given the severe tone of the verse under discussion, which does not align with such an interpretation. Furthermore, the subsequent discussion in the present series of verses suggests a debate about the idolaters’ denial of the Resurrection and responses to it, which reinforces the suggestion that Allah’s edict refers to the setting in of the Day of Judgment.

Moreover, the term ‘Lord’ is specifically attached to the Prophet (as it appears as ‘your Lord’ in the verse rather than ‘God’s edict’), indicating that the coming of God’s edict will be a victory for the Prophet and a triumph for him over his enemies.

The phrase Those who were before them had acted likewise, emphasizes the threat and invokes a historical parallel, indicating that those people who came before them also denied God’s signs and mocked the truth, and engaged in actions that naturally invited divine punishment, which they ultimately faced: So the evils of what they had earned visited them … ().

The subsequent sentence, Allah did not wrong them, but they used to wrong themselves, is an interjection to clarify that the descent of punishment was due to their own wrongdoing, and not an act of injustice on behalf of God. It emphasizes that God did not send punishment for a single or double injustice of wrongdoing, but actually granted them respite until they persisted in their wrongdoing, after which punishment was sent down upon them. The phrase used to wrong themselves, suggests the persistence and permanence of their unjust behavior, thus establishing their determination in wrongdoing and negating any notion that an injustice had originated with God.

فَأَصَابَهُمْ سَيِّئَاتُ مَا عَمِلُواْ وَحَاقَ بِهِم مَّا كَانُواْ بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِؤُونَ ٣٤

(16:34) So the evils of what they had earned visited them (ḥāqa bihim), and they were besieged by what they used to deride.

Lastly, ḥāqa bihim is understood to mean that God’s punishment enveloped them. Some have also read it to mean that it descended upon them, referring to the very punishments that their prophets had warned them about, which they had mocked. The remainder of the verse’s meaning is clear.

وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُواْ لَوْ شَاء اللَّهُ مَا عَبَدْنَا مِن دُونِهِ مِن شَيْءٍ نَّحْنُ وَلا آبَاؤُنَا وَلاَ حَرَّمْنَا مِن دُونِهِ مِن شَيْءٍ كَذَلِكَ فَعَلَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَهَلْ عَلَى الرُّسُلِ إِلاَّ الْبَلاغُ الْمُبِينُ ٣٥

(16:35) The polytheists say, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him—neither we, nor our fathers—nor would we have held anything holy besides Him.’ Those who were before them had acted likewise. Is the messengers’ duty anything but to communicate in clear terms?

This verse speaks on behalf of the idolaters who deny the principle of prophethood, expressing their skepticism toward it. This is why it describes them with their explicit characteristic: The polytheists (qālū allādīna ashrakū, lit. ‘those who practiced polytheism said’). Note that the Qurʾan could have sufficed by using a pronoun, such as ‘they said’, as in the preceding verses, it was content with pronouns. However, it did not do this, and the rationale for this is so that the listener will clearly understand that the doubt being expressed here is that of the idol worshipers.

The clause, Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped, is a conditional sentence. The direct of object of the verb wished is omitted, since the consequent of the conditional sentence conveys it. The full meaning of the sentence is: ‘If God had willed us not to worship anything besides Him, then we would not have worshiped anything besides him.’

Some critics maintain that divine will cannot be connected to inaction, such as not engaging in worship. It’s argued that there must be a tangible, existent element that aligns with God’s will and corresponds directly with the act of ‘not worshiping.’ In other words, if God intended for us to be monotheists or to solely worship Him, then our worship of others would not occur. This perspective hinges on the idea that ‘What God wills happens, and what He does not will does not happen.’ Here, the absence of an action is considered to result from the absence of a positive divine will, rather than the presence of a divine intent to prevent the action.

However, this critique doesn’t hold up. While the underlying concept may be accurate in metaphysical terms, the nuances of language and the metaphorical nature of speech don’t strictly conform to cosmic truths or philosophical constructs. In fact, the prevalent mindset among the general populace, including the idol worshipers who lacked more sophisticated reasoning, acknowledges that the manifestation of existent entities is sanctioned by divine will. Similarly, the emergence of non-existent entities is also deemed permissible and feasible by divine will. The language used by the Messenger of God aligns with these linguistic norms. This is evident in his own words addressed to God Almighty: ‘O God, if You wish that You should not be worshiped, then indeed, You will not be worshiped!’

Additionally, with their statement, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped …’, the idol worshipers alluded to the words of their prophets, who admonished them not to ascribe partners to God and to worship none but Him, and to not declare forbidden what God had made lawful. All these words are prohibitive commands, and prohibition implies a demand for cessation. Hence, the divine will is indeed attached to the non-performance of an act.

Moreover, the idolaters were not denying the oneness of God in His lordship in terms of being the creator of the universe. They did not attribute the creation and origination of the world to two gods; rather, they only denied the exclusivity of His worship. In other words, they acknowledged creation and origination as the exclusive domain of God but devoted their worship to their own deities. Indeed, the polytheists had many gods; among them was one who was considered the creator of the universe but who was not worshiped, and the rest were worshiped but not regarded as creators. Therefore, the polytheists did not actually worship God; it was not a case of them worshiping both God and others. Given this, the implied meaning of the phrase ‘Had Allah wished...’ could be: ‘Had God willed that we affirm His oneness in worship, or had He willed that we worship Him alone, we would have done so.’

If this is the intended meaning of the phrase, then the critical outcome of this conditional statement should focus on confirming the exclusivity of His worship or the act of worshipping Him alone, rather than merely denying the worship of others. Consequently, if the result of the conditional statement is expressed as a denial of worshipping others, it should be understood as an indirect way of emphasizing the exclusivity of worshiping Him alone. Thus, this nuance is important to grasp.

If you reject this explanation and maintain that divine will should be linked to an actual, existent matter, then the phrase should be construed as: ‘Had God decided that we should stop worshiping others, we would not have worshiped...’ In this way, although the condition and its consequence appear different in terms of affirmation and negation, they are essentially aligned in their actual implication.

In the phrase, ‘… we would not have worshiped anything besides Him (mā ʿabadnā min dūni-hi min shayʾ)…’, the first use of the preposition min (‘of’, ‘from’) is explanatory, while the second is superfluous, to emphasize the totality of the negation, giving the sentence the meaning: ‘We would not have worshiped anything apart from Him.’ The same is true in the case of the subsequent phrase ‘nor would we have held anything holy besides Him.’

The phrase, neither we, nor our fathers, serves to clarify the identity of the speaker of the statement, ‘… we would not have worshiped …’ indicating that this statement is made on behalf of both themselves and their forefathers, as they followed their forefathers in the worship of idols. The Qurʾan frequently recounts such statements from the polytheists, as in the verse: ‘We found our fathers following a creed and we are indeed following in their footsteps’ ().

The phrase, ‘… nor would we have held anything holy besides Him’, is a continuation of the sentence starting with ‘… worshiped …’ meaning: ‘If God had willed that we do not venerate or treat as sacred anything without His command or that we make lawful what we had forbidden, we would never have declared it forbidden ...’ And what is meant by what they had forbidden are the baḥīra, sāʾiba, and other sacred things which are named elsewhere in the Qurʾan.

Here, there is a point to consider, namely that the apparent meaning of the sentence, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him …’, implies that the absence of worship is contingent on the will of God Almighty. What they mean here by ‘Had Allah wished’ is God’s creative will, which never fails to fulfill His intent because if they had meant other than that, namely God’s legislative will, they should have said: ‘If God had so willed, we would certainly have obeyed Him and answered His call’—implying if God had willed thus in the form of a moral or legislative command, we would surely have obeyed Him and responded to His command. Therefore, this is an explanation of the idolaters’ rationale for their idolatry, claiming that if God’s will had been genuinely set against idol worship, they would never have engaged in it in the first place.

Thus, they seem to suggest that if the message of the prophets was a message of truth, and this command to abstain from worshiping idols and from venerating things such as the baḥīra, sāʾiba, wasīla, and so on, were prohibitions from the sublime God, then we would neither have worshiped those idols nor would we have declared forbidden what He has made lawful. For if He had willed otherwise, it would have been impossible for us to act contrary to His will, since it is impossible for anything to deviate from His will. Therefore, the fact that we worship others besides Him and declare things as forbidden is in itself proof that there is no command or prohibition from God in this matter, and that no message or law from Him has come regarding this.

This summary of the idolaters’ argument is what we have deduced from the context of the verse: They argue that their practices, like idolatry and forbidding what God has made lawful, and the other acts they engage in that are criticized by the Prophet and in his message, are not restrained by divine prohibition. Their reasoning is that if God had indeed forbidden these practices, they wouldn’t have been able to engage in them at all.

However, it’s crucial to note that they are not suggesting that God actively desires them to worship idols, making such worship and prohibitions an unavoidable necessity, rendering them powerless to resist. If that were the case, and they were under such compulsion, the prophets’ admonitions would lose their significance. This is because the word ‘had’ (law) indicates the impossibility of a consequence if a condition is not met, and the meaning of the conditional sentence ‘Had Allah wished (law shāʾ Allāh), we would not have worshiped anything besides Him’ is that God has not in fact willed it, and thus we worship idols and declare lawful things forbidden.

It’s incorrect to infer that they mean, ‘God desired us to worship idols, hence we do, as we are compelled by Him,’ or ‘He desired us not to uphold monotheism in worship, and we haven’t, because He compelled us.’ These interpretations are not aligned with the verse’s content or the intrinsic meaning of the conditional phrase.

Moreover, if their argument intended to dismiss the validity of prophethood by citing divine predestination, their very statement inadvertently admits their deviation and inadvertently affirms the truth of prophethood. They attempt to justify their actions by claiming they are forced into misguidance and idolatry by God’s will, making them unable to embrace the Prophet’s guidance. They imply that God’s will has bound them to persist in misguidance, compelling them into idolatry and the forbidding of what He has made lawful, leaving them powerless to act against His will.

Indeed, the polytheists wish to claim guidance and persist in their delusions. As God Himself recounts after describing their worship of the angels, they say: They say, ‘Had the All-beneficent wished, we would not have worshiped them.’ They do not have any knowledge of that, and they do nothing but surmise. Did We give them a Book before this, so that they are holding fast to it? Rather they say, ‘We found our fathers following a creed, and we are indeed guided in their footsteps’ (). Therefore, they clearly claim that they and their forefathers were guided.

The Qur’an frequently relays the perspective of the idolaters who regard idolatry not merely as a practice but as a revered tradition passed down through generations. They hold the belief that each successive generation is obligated to honor this ancestral heritage without deviation. Yet, how does this belief align with their implicit acknowledgment of their own misguidance and wretchedness?

Furthermore, their argument was not meant to suggest that their actions were independently created by them, disconnected from divine will, contrary to the doctrine of determinism. Had that been their intent, it would not be sensible to relate their actions to the will of God, as, in that case, the divine will would be rendered ineffective, and God Almighty could only prevent such actions by creating obstacles and impediments to tem. With the creation of obstacles, God could have prevented them from doing what He did not wish for them to do. In this context, the polytheists would have said: ‘If God had willed, He would have prevented us from worshiping others and from prohibiting what we have declared forbidden.’ However, the apparent meaning of the verse refutes this interpretation. Alternatively, they would have said: ‘If the will of God had been involved, then the action would not truly be ours; but the action is indeed ours, and we are independent in it.’

Moreover, the idolaters’ stance doesn’t imply that their deeds were self-originated, entirely detached from the divine will, which would contradict the concept of determinism. If that were their assertion, it would be illogical to attribute their actions to God’s will, for in such a scenario, God’s will would seem ineffectual. If divine will were deemed ineffective, it would suggest that God Almighty could only deter such actions by placing hindrances and barriers. In this framework, the polytheists might argue, ‘If God had willed, He would have prevented us from worshiping others and from prohibiting what we have declared forbidden.’ But the apparent meaning of the verse contradicts this notion. Alternatively, they might claim, ‘If the will of God had been involved, then the action would not truly be ours; but the action is indeed ours, and we are independent in it.’ (Yet, this line of reasoning does not align with the verse’s evident message.)

Furthermore, if the meaning of the statement, Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him …, was that: ‘If God had wanted to prevent us by creating obstacles’, then the polytheists would have had a valid point. It would not make sense for Qurʾan to refute this in Surah al-Zukhruf by stating, They do not have any knowledge of that, and they do nothing but surmise ().

Therefore, based on what we have mentioned here, it is correct to say that the polytheists’ aim in saying, Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him, was to justify their idolatry on the grounds that the divine will has not been attached to the abandonment of idol worship. In summary, God did not will that they should abandon it. They did not intend to imply that the divine will was, in fact, attached to the act of idol worship, which would necessitate predestination, nor did they mean that it is impossible for the divine will to be attached to worship, or to affirm the doctrine of delegation (tafwīḍ), which would mean that God can only prevent the actions of His servants by creating obstacles to them.

In response to this, the Qurʾan makes clear that the only duty of the prophets is to deliver a clear message, and God’s will regarding human guidance is legislative and dependent on human choice—it is not something predetermined: Those who were before them had acted likewise. Is the messengers’ duty anything but to communicate in clear terms?

This part of the verse addresses the Prophet of God and commands him to convey his message clearly and to disregard the fabrications and justifications the polytheists concoct for their beliefs, because their arguments are void and invalid, whereas his proofs and arguments are complete and decisive. This brief statement hints at the weakness of the polytheists’ reasoning.

Thus, when it is said, Those who were before them had acted likewise, it means that the path his contemporaries have taken is exactly the same path that the polytheists of the past took, worshiping other than God and forbidding things that God had not forbidden. When God’s messengers came to them and forbade them from these actions, they would say, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him—neither we, nor our fathers—nor would we have held anything holy besides Him.’ Hence, the verse in question conveys exactly the same theme as the verse: Like the precedent of Pharaoh’s clan and those who were before them, who defied Allah’s signs, so Allah seized them for their sins ().

Is the messengers’ duty anything but to communicate in clear terms?—This means they must convey the divine message clearly and complete the argument against the people to whom they are sent, for the sole duty of God’s messengers is to deliver a clear and manifest message, nothing more. It is not their role to compel people to accept their summons to worship God, nor to take upon themselves the creative will of God, which does not accept deviation, and invite people to worship Him with that will; nor is it to invite people with the act of God’s creative command, which brings things into existence when He says, ‘Be,’ and thus forcefully turning them from disbelief to faith, and from sin to obedience.

Since the messenger is a human being like other humans, and the mission with which he is sent is to warn and to give glad tidings, or in other words, a set of social laws revealed to him by God that take into account and respect the welfare of people in this world and the hereafter. Although the appearance of these laws is in the form of commands and prohibitions, in reality, they are warnings and glad tidings. As God Almighty Himself has said: Say, I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of Allah, nor do I know the Unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel (). This is what God has commanded His prophet to convey to the people, and He gave the same instructions to Noah and the prophets who came after him, as indicated in Surah Hud and elsewhere.

Also, addressing the Messenger of God, God told him: Say, ‘I am just a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is the One God. So whoever expects to encounter his Lord—let him act righteously, and not associate anyone with the worship of his Lord’ (). All of these ideas are summarized in the verse under discussion in a brief statement: Those who were before them had acted likewise. Is the messengers’ duty anything but to communicate in clear terms? Since, as previously noted, this argument was well known to be associated with the polytheists both in ancient and recent times, the response of the prophets was always that it is not the role of a messenger of God to force people to faith and obedience, but rather his sole duty is to clearly and plainly convey the message, and to warn and give glad tidings for them to make up their own minds. The argument of the polytheists cannot respond to this reasoning. So, you carry on with your work and do not desire for the guidance of those who have gone astray, and in the two next verses, this argument in summary is expounded in detail:

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولاً أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُواْ الطَّاغُوتَ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ هَدَى اللَّهُ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِ الضَّلالَةُ فَسِيرُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ فَانظُرُواْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ ٣٦

(16:36) Certainly We raised an messenger in every nation to preach: ‘Worship Allah, and keep away from the Rebels (ṭāghūt).’ Then among them were some whom Allah guided, and among them were some who deserved to be in error. So travel over the land and then observe how was the fate of the deniers.

The term ṭāghūt is originally a verbal noun, like ṭughyān, that means to transgress beyond rightful limits without justification, and its infinitive is taghwā. Al-Rāghib writes: ‘Ṭāghūt refers to any transgressor or any entity worshiped other than God; it is used in both the singular and plural forms. God Almighty has used it in the singular, saying, So one who disavows the Rebels … () and also stated … and keep away from the Rebels … (), as well as in the plural, for example, He has said, their patrons are the Rebels ().’

As for the statement, Certainly We raised a messenger in every nation to preach …, it points to the fact that the act of sending messengers is not specific to any one nation but is a universal tradition that applies to all people and nations, in accordance with their needs. God is well aware of the needs of His servants, just as in the previous verse, He hinted at the universality of sending messengers by stating, Those who were before them had acted likewise.

And the phrase, ‘Worship Allah, and keep away from the Rebels’, as the context indicates, defines the mission of these messengers, meaning that the true essence of sending a messenger is nothing other than to invite God’s servants to worship Him and to avoid Ṭāghūt. Because a command or prohibition from one human to another, especially when the one commanding or prohibiting is a messenger, is nothing other than a invitation to act. It does not imply coercion or compulsion, and the messenger himself cannot make such a claim, as someone could refute such a claim by saying: ‘If God wills, we will not worship anyone but Him, and if He does not will, then sending a messenger makes no sense.’ We have mentioned this to clarify the baselessness of the claim made by some that the implicit understanding of the statement should be, ‘so that the messenger may tell them to worship God and avoid Rebel,’ to make clear that their reasoning is unfounded.

It is stated that when God says, Then among them were some whom Allah guided, and among them were some who deserved to be in error, it means that all nations, like the current one, are divided into two factions: one, those whom God has guided successfully to His worship and avoidance of false deities; and the other, those upon whom misguidance has been established due to their own choices, not as a direct infliction by God as a form of punishment. Therefore, this passage highlights that all nations have been divided into two groups: those who are guided and those who are astray. It emphasizes that divine guidance is a reward for good deeds, while going astray is a punishment for one’s own misguidance.

This shows that guidance comes solely from God Almighty, and no one shares this role with Him. It is not attributed to anyone except as a derivative of His will, as He Himself has addressed His Prophet in the Qurʾan, saying, “ You cannot guide whomever you wish, but (it is) Allah (who) guides whomever He wishes, and He knows best those who are guided (). Then, in the following verse of this chapter, we read: If you are eager for them to be guided, indeed Allah does not guide those who mislead others, and they will have no helpers ()—see our discussion of this verse below. Therefore, this does not imply predestination or compulsion on the part of God, where the servant has no say in the matter. On the contrary, the first steps toward guidance are entirely in the hands of the servant himself, as indicated by the verse, As for those who strive in Us, We shall surely guide them in Our ways, and Allah is indeed with the virtuous (). This suggests that divine guidance is within human reach and consists of good deeds; if one acts well, God will be with him and will not allow him to go astray.

The second group among nations consists of those for whom misguidance has been determined, a result of their own poor choices and misdeeds, not the kind of misguidance imposed by God as a punishment. This is evident because the expression used in the text indicates a prior state of being astray—who deserved to be in error. Then, in the next verse, God attributes misguidance to Himself, saying: indeed Allah does not guide those who mislead others (). Therefore, these servants were already in error, and this misguidance was then confirmed upon them by God as a recompense for their evil deeds. So understand this.

God never attributes misguidance to Himself except in cases preceded by the servant’s own wrongdoing, immorality, disbelief, denial, and similar transgressions. For instance, He has said, and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing lot (), which clearly shows that not providing guidance is equivalent to leading astray. Also, He has said, and Allah leads astray the wrongdoers (); and, and He leads no one astray thereby except the transgressors (); and, Indeed those who are faithless and do wrong, Allah shall never forgive them, nor shall He guide them to any way, except the way to hell (), and, So when they swerved Allah made their hearts swerve, and Allah does not guide the transgressing lot (), along with other similar verses.

In the verse in question, God chooses not to phrase it as: ‘Then among them are those whom God has guided and others whom He has led astray’, even though such an expression would not have been incorrect. This is because while misguidance can be seen as a form of divine retribution and thus attributed to God Almighty, He refrains from articulating it in this manner. The intent is to avoid any misconception that God is the originator of misguidance itself. Instead, the verse initially mentions those whom God has guided and subsequently presents a contrast with those deemed worthy of misguidance. These are individuals who, through their own free will and decision, have opted for misguidance over guidance—essentially choosing not to be guided. In such cases, God, whose essence is to offer guidance, does not bestow it upon them.

To put it differently, the distinction between the inherent misguidance associated with God’s servant and the punitive misguidance attributed to God Almighty lies in the potential and capacity for guidance that God has instilled in humanity. If an individual aligns with their inherent nature, preserves their innate disposition from corruption, does not compromise their potential for guidance by succumbing to whims or engaging in sinful acts, and, should they falter, mends the resulting flaws in their nature through remorse and repentance, then God Almighty will provide guidance. This divine guidance serves as a reward, paralleling the original, innate capacity for guidance that was also a form of initial guidance from God Almighty.

Conversely, if an individual succumbs to personal desires, disobeys their Lord, and progressively erodes the inherent potential for guidance, then the Lord will withhold guidance from them. This self-inflicted misguidance is the consequence of one’s detrimental choices. Should the individual persist in their ways without feeling remorse or seeking repentance, God will allow them to remain in their chosen path, solidifying their state of misguidance and this is the form of divine and punitive misguidance.

Some may suggest that potential and capacity inherently possess dual aspects, implying that a person capable of being guided equally possesses the potential for misguidance, with human beings constantly navigating between their existence’s positive and negative facets—all of which originate from Almighty God, including their initial potential and capacity.

Nevertheless, it’s crucial to recognize that misguidance represents a lack, a void of guidance, rather than an entity in itself. Therefore, it’s not accurate to state that God creates misguidance. This perspective reveals the argument’s inherent weakness. While it’s true that potential has dual aspects, the counterpart of potential for guidance—misguidance—isn’t an actual entity attributable to God. It’s not a case of God shaping a person’s path towards guidance or misguidance. Misguidance, by its nature, signifies the absence of guidance. If we were to treat misguidance as a tangible, affirmative entity, it would no longer represent the absence of guidance, nor would it be misguidance. Instead, guidance and misguidance would be considered two distinct, existent outcomes, akin to the tangible consequences resulting from a stone or a lump of earth, both of which are tangible entities.

Put simply, misguidance gains its meaning in contrast to guidance; it’s defined by the lack of the perfection inherent in guidance. Misguidance emerges from the absence of this perfection, making it a concept rooted in non-existence. If we were to regard misguidance as a tangible entity, it would cease to be considered misguidance. Consequently, there would be no distinction between the misguided and the guided, nor between states of misguidance and guidance. The logical approach, then, is to view misguidance as a non-entity, a void, and to acknowledge that an individual’s initial straying is a result of their own doing. It’s crucial to deliberate on this point meticulously to ensure the integrity of this understanding is maintained.

So travel over the land and then observe how was the fate of the deniers —In this context, the directive to travel seems to be aimed at the idolaters who claimed, ‘if God had willed, we would not have worshiped anything other than Him.’ The transition from third-person narrative to a direct address serves to deliver a more striking rhetorical impact, reinforcing the statement and concluding the argument decisively.

This statement forms a coherent deduction from the responses provided to the polytheists’ argument, both in summary and in depth. Its core message is that the mission and the invitation of the prophets are not under divine duress in such a way that when the command comes to forsake idol worship and the prohibition of what God has permitted, the polytheists are forced into compliance. If they are not coerced into obedience, they argue, ‘the invitation does not stem from a prophetic or divine origin, and this individual’s claim to be God’s messenger is false.’ Instead, the prophetic invitation is akin to normal human appeals. God appoints messengers to guide you towards His worship and to urge you away from false gods. The fundamental nature of this invitation is to warn and to offer good news. The proof of this interpretation lies in the remnants of ancient, devastated nations, which bear witness to the consequences of divine retribution. Thus, travel in the earth and witness the fate of those who rejected the truth. This will help you comprehend that the prophets’ call is a standard one, grounded in caution and promise. The concept of prophethood, as you perceive it, does not align with reality.

إِن تَحْرِصْ عَلَى هُدَاهُمْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي مَن يُضِلُّ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن نَّاصِرِينَ٣٧

(16:37) If you are eager for them to be guided, indeed Allah does not guide those who mislead others, and they will have no helpers.

After describing how earlier nations were divided into two groups, one of which were those upon whom misguidance was affirmed—they were the ones who committed polytheism and uttered the claims we recounted above, similar to the polytheists before them—this verse now states that the affirmation of their misguidance is irreversible and unchangeable. Because, in truth, there is no guide for any creature other than God. Hence, if their guidance was still a possibility, God would have guided them, but He did not and does not; instead, He leads them astray. Since misguidance is incompatible with guidance, there is no hope for their guidance, nor is there any helper to assist them because no one can overpower God.

Thus, the verse consoles and reassures the Messenger of God, advising him not to be overly eager for them to be guided and declares that the divine decree has inscribed misguidance for them, and God does not contradict His decree, for with Him, no word is altered, and He is not unjust to His servants.

Therefore, when it is stated, If you are eager for them to be guided …, the implication is that even if you are eager for their guidance, your eagerness will not benefit them in the slightest. They are not among those for whom guidance is possible, because guidance lies solely in the hands of God, and God has not chosen to guide them but rather to misguide them on account of their own poor choices and misdeeds. Neither does God nullify His own action, nor do they have a helper other than God who could prevail over Him, and it would be contrary to God’s statement if He were to guide them Himself.

In relation to these verses, which are divided into three parts, there have been extensive debates among scholars who support the concepts of determinism and free will. Each faction interprets the verses in a manner that aligns with their own theological stance. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, a theologian from the Ashʿarī school, has commented:

“When the polytheists asserted, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him …’ they intended to suggest that if both guidance and misguidance, as well as monotheism and polytheism, are decreed by God Almighty, then the dispatch of prophets would be redundant and meaningless. However, their assertion essentially challenges God’s authority, insinuating that humans have the right to question God’s judgments and actions. This line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. It is not our place to interrogate God by inquiring, ‘Why have You chosen to do this instead of that?’”

He further explains: ‘Therefore, it is evident that God Almighty’s condemnation of the polytheists and those who made such statements was not on the grounds of falsehood or because the affairs of guidance and misguidance lie beyond God’s control. Instead, the reproach was directed at their belief that this notion could invalidate the rationale behind the prophetic missions, thereby excusing their continued adherence to polytheism and idolatry.’

On the other hand, the Muʿtazilī scholar al-Zamakhsharī commented: ‘The polytheists attempted to justify their reprehensible actions by attributing them to God’s will, claiming, “If God had willed, we would not have committed such actions.” This rhetoric is a continuation of the determinists’ narrative, a misconception shared by their predecessors as well. Nonetheless, the role of messengers is merely to deliver the truth. As confirmed by the Qur’an and rational evidence, God does not wish for individuals to engage in polytheism or commit sins. Rather, the messengers underscore the moral reprehensibility of polytheism and affirm God’s detachment from the deeds of His servants, emphasizing that these actions are the result of the servants’ own free will. God encourages righteous behavior, aids in its realization, cautions against malevolence, and issues warnings of punishment for those who indulge in sinful deeds.’

Nonetheless, the debate between these two factions is extensive and intricate.

As an astute reader, you might recognize that the verses in question aim to address a different point than what these theologians might have perceived. Specifically, they highlight that the polytheists’ underlying motive for stating, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him’, was to discredit the prophets’ teachings. They argued that if the prophets’ revelations about renouncing polytheism and the forbiddance of what is lawful were accurate, then God would have surely inclined us to refrain from such practices. And if it were His will, we would not have engaged in these actions. Yet, this line of reasoning is flawed.

The question of whether God’s will is implicated in the polytheists’ idolatrous practices, as determinists suggest, or whether it’s entirely uninvolved, with the actions of individuals being their own independent creations, as argued by advocates of free will, goes beyond what the polytheists’ dialogue implies. These considerations do not align with the core of the polytheists’ arguments. As previously elucidated, a more accurate comprehension of their discourse emerges when one considers the specific context in which their statements were made.

The expression “and they will have no helpers” suggests that, in contrast, others possess numerous helpers, not merely one. This is inferred from the context, which emphasizes that the polytheists are utterly devoid of any support, neither singular nor multiple. The statement doesn’t merely say they lack a single helper; instead, it articulates they have no helpers, highlighting that, unlike the polytheists, others do have support. This underscores that on the Day of Judgment, while help will be available, the polytheists will find themselves deprived of it. In contrast, those who are not polytheists and have followed Divine guidance will indeed benefit from this assistance. This concept mirrors the scenario depicted in another verse where the wrongdoers express their despair, stating: ‘Now we have no intercessors’ (), indicating a similar absence of aid on the Day of Judgment.

These helpers are none other than the noble angels, and other intermediaries of divine success and guidance, with the Almighty God enveloping them with His grace and intercession, as He says: Indeed We shall help Our messengers and those who have faith in the life of the world and on the day when the witnesses rise up ().

وَأَقْسَمُواْ بِاللَّهِ جَهْدَ أَيْمَانِهِمْ لاَ يَبْعَثُ اللَّهُ مَن يَمُوتُ بَلَى وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ٣٨

(16:38) They swear by Allah with solemn oaths (jahd aymāni-him) that Allah will not resurrect those who die. Yes indeed, it is a promise binding upon Him, but most people do not know.

In his Mufradāt, al-Rāghib says: ‘jahd and juhd both mean strength, but mashaqqa is more extreme than jahd. God says, They swear by Allah with solemn oaths, meaning that they swear oaths and go to great efforts in swearing them to make their oaths as strong as possible.’ In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says that the meaning of this phrase is that they took their oaths to the utmost.

The phrase “that Allah will not resurrect those who die” constitutes a rejection of both the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment. It implies their belief in death as the ultimate cessation of existence, negating any notion of re-creation post-mortem. This stance does not contradict the prevalent belief in reincarnation among many of them, as reincarnation is distinct from the concept of resurrection and re-creation. Reincarnation posits that the soul of the deceased transitions into a new human or another living form, continuing its existence in this world, a process often described as ‘rebirth.’

The phrase “Yes indeed, it is a promise binding upon Him” conveys that the reality contradicts their perception. God will assuredly resurrect those who have died, and this commitment is a steadfast and irrevocable promise from God. It signifies that God has obliged Himself to honor this pledge to His servants, ensuring that it remains immutable and unchangeable.

… but most people do not know—Most people remain unaware that God will undeniably fulfill this promise to His servants. This promise is unbreakable, and this decree is unalterable. Their lack of awareness stems from their disregard for God’s signs, all of which indicate the inevitability of resurrection and affirm this commitment. These signs encompass the creation of the heavens and the earth, the diversity in human behavior ranging from oppression and injustice to righteousness and benevolence, and the commandments outlined in divine laws.

لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمُ الَّذِي يَخْتَلِفُونَ فِيهِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُواْ كَاذِبِينَ٣٩

(16:39) That He may clarify for them (li-yubyyina la-hum) what they differ about, and that the faithless may know that they were liars.

The preposition li- at the beginning of this verse is purposive. This gives the verse the following meaning: ‘God will resurrect whoever dies so that He may clarify for them that which they differ upon...’ and this purpose, as well as the subsequent one, is in reality a single goal, because the latter arises from and is a condition of the former. This is because when the disputes of the disbelievers with their prophets are resolved with the advent of the resurrection, they will inevitably understand that they were lying in their denial of resurrection. Likewise, the disputes among people over matters pertaining to the Day of Judgment will be resolved when they witness the state of that Day with their own eyes.

In the speech of God the Exalted, this expression and others like it are repeated frequently so much so that one can consider the issue of resolving disputes and clarifying them as one of the primary features of the Day of Judgment—a day whose severity will not only weigh heavily upon humanity but also upon the heavens and the earth. The detailed accounts that God has given in His Speech regarding this day, such as crossing the bridge (ṣirāṭ), the opening of the records of deeds, the weighing of these deeds, reckoning, and the final judgment, are all extensions of this.

It becomes clear—particularly when considering the verses discussing the Day of Judgment—that the word ‘differ’ mentioned here does not refer to variations in physical attributes like gender, height, or skin color. Instead, the ‘dispute’ pertains to disagreements about the true faith, encompassing both beliefs and practices. These are the issues that God the Exalted delineated in His Books and articulated through His prophets. This is further affirmed later in the same chapter, where God states, ‘We did not send down the Book to you except for the purpose that you may clarify for them what they differ about’ (), underscoring the resolution of disputes concerning religious matters.

For discerning readers, it’s evident that the enlightenment God provides on the Day of Resurrection transcends the worldly guidance offered through His Book, the language of the prophets, the imparting of wisdom, the giving of admonitions, and the noble debates they partook in. The clarity to be revealed is far more profound than these earthly mediums of understanding. It’s a clarity that can aptly be termed as ‘manifest reality,’ allowing no space for doubt, uncertainty, or internal conflict. This ultimate transparency is reflected in the verse: ‘You were certainly oblivious of this. We have removed your veil from you, and so your sight is acute today’ (), and reiterated in: ‘On that day Allah will pay them in full their due recompense, and they shall know that Allah is the Manifest Reality’ (), emphasizing the unmistakable clarity of divine truth.

Hence, on that day, they will witness firsthand the religious truths and teachings they once contested, clearly discerning the merit of righteous deeds from the futility of their persistent misdeeds. The veil of uncertainty will be lifted, laying bare the reality of truth before their eyes.

إِنَّمَا قَوْلُنَا لِشَيْءٍ إِذَا أَرَدْنَاهُ أَن نَّقُولَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٤٠

(16:40) All that We say to a thing, when We will it, is to say to it ‘Be!’ and it is.

This verse echoes the sentiment of verse 82 from Surah Yā Sīn, which proclaims: All His command, when He wills something, is to say to it ‘Be,’ and it is. By comparing these verses, it becomes apparent that God equates His command (amr) with His word (qawl). Similarly, He describes His command and word in terms of their absolute power, certainty, and irrevocability, also referring to them as a decree or a judgment. This is reflected in statements like: though I cannot avail you anything against Allah. Sovereignty belongs only to Allah (), the warning: We apprised him of the matter that these will be rooted out by dawn (), and the declaration: and when He decides on a matter, He just says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is ().

God also describes His divine decree using the term ‘word’ (kalima). As noted in the Qur’an: “Indeed, Our word has already preceded for Our servants, the messengers, that they will certainly be the victors” (). Additionally, it is stated: “Certainly Our decree has gone beforehand in favor of Our servants, the messengers, that they will indeed receive help” (). Regarding Jesus, it is articulated: “Indeed the case of Jesus with Allah is like the case of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was” (). Furthermore, in reference to Jesus: “and His Word that He cast toward Mary and a spirit from Him” (). These diverse terms—saying, word, command, will, decree—highlight the various manifestations of God’s act of creation, emphasizing that all is encompassed and directed by God’s sovereign command.

Drawing from these insights, it’s understood that God Almighty’s act of creation—bestowing existence upon entities, which essentially is their very existence—is encapsulated in His command (amr), His utterance (qawl), and His word (kalima). However, based on the explicit phrasing in the Qur’an, it becomes clear that God’s word is specifically manifested through His saying, characterized by its definitive and decisive nature.

This elucidation reveals that God’s will (irāda) and His decree (qaḍāʾ) are unified, holding a precedence in the order of existence over His saying and command. Hence, God Almighty initially wills and decrees a matter. Subsequently, He manifests this will through His command, pronouncing ‘Be,’ and thus, it materializes into existence.

God has demonstrated that nothing can veer away from His command, asserting that His word embodies truth. As it’s stated: “It is He who created the heavens and the earth with reason, and the day He says, ‘Be!’ it is. His word is the truth” (). This indicates that His word is not only truth in declaration but also in its manifestation in reality, mirroring the concrete external reality that is His act. Consequently, deviation from His will, the emergence of falsehood, or the presence of invalidity are inconceivable. It’s inherently understood that a fact of existence or an established reality is immutable. Hence, God’s acts, which are actualities, are devoid of errors or mistakes. His command remains unchallenged, His word unrefuted, and His promise invariably fulfilled.

Drawing from this verse, as well as the preceding one where the polytheists assert, ‘Had Allah wished, we would not have worshiped anything besides Him’ (), it’s evident that two forms of divine will are ascribed to God. The first is the creative will (irādat al-takwīni), which is absolute and unchangeable. The second is the legislative will (irādat al-tashrīʿ), which is subject to human response—it can be met with either compliance or defiance. This topic will be further explored and expanded upon shortly.

Examining Narrations

1. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, it narrated via his own chain of narration from Abū Jaʿfar, regarding the verse, Those who were before them had also schemed. Then Allah razed their edifice from the foundations and the roof collapsed upon them from above and the punishment overtook them whence they were not aware: ‘It refers to the house of their schemes, meaning they died, and God caused them to dwell in Hellfire eternally. This is a metaphor for the enemies of the Family of Muḥammad.’

Author’s comment: The apparent meaning of this narration is that the phrase, Then Allah razed their edifice from the foundations is a metaphor for the invalidation of their schemes, not their physical homes.

2. And in Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Muḥammad b. Muslim from Abū Jaʿfar, who said: The meaning of then Allah razed their edifice from the foundations was the house where they would gather to conspire in harming and oppressing the prophets.
3. In Tafsīr al-Qummī, concerning the phrase, Those who were given knowledge will say …, it is relayed from the Imām: ‘The intended referents of Those who were given knowledge are the Imāms who will say to their enemies: ‘Where are your partners and those whom you obeyed in the world?’ … The Imām stated: ‘Those whose souls the angels are taking while they are wronging themselves are the same group who, when calamities befall them, submit and say, ‘We were not doing any evil!’—but God rejects their statement, saying: ‘Yes, indeed Allah knows best what you used to do!’
4. Shaykh al-Ṭūsī narrates in his Amālī via his chain of narrators from Abū Isḥāq al-Hamadānī, who narrates from the Commander of the Faithful that, in a letter written to the people of Egypt, he said: ‘O servants of God, the moment when a servant is nearest to forgiveness and mercy is when they act in obedience to God and sincerely repent. I adjure you to observe Godwariness, for it encompasses all good, and there is no good beyond it. Through Godwariness, one attains a portion of the good of this world and the hereafter. Indeed, God Almighty has said: But to those who were Godwary it will be said, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’ They will say, ‘Good.’ For those who do good in this world there will be a good reward, and the abode of the Hereafter is better, and the abode of the Godwary is surely excellent ().
5. In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated via Ibn Miskān from Abū Jaʿfar, concerning the phrase, and the abode of the Godwary is surely excellent, it is interpreted to mean this world.
6. And in Tafsīr al-Qummī, concerning the phrase those whom the angels take away while they are pure, it is narrated from the Imām that it refers to the believers whose birth in this world is pure.

Author’s comment: Given that the earlier phrase, Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves, mirrors the verse under discussion, it does not appear that this narration yields a clear meaning. However, since the narration is weak in any case, this is not a matter of concern.

7. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is reported by Ibn Abī Ḥātim from al-Sudayy, who related: ‘The Quraysh gathered and said among themselves that Muḥammad is a man of sweet speech and when someone converses with him, he influences them so much that it seems as if he takes away their intellect. Therefore, they agreed to select a limited number of their nobles, who were well-known by lineage, and recognizable by strangers, and then every night, or every other night, send them to stand on the roads of Mecca to dissuade the newcomers who come to visit Muḥammad from proceeding. They carried out this plan, and each took position on a road; whenever they saw someone coming from outside Mecca, either to inquire about their relatives or to personally see Muḥammad, they would approach, introduce themselves as recognized individuals, and then say, “I inform you about the situation with Muḥammad: he is a liar, followed only by the foolish, the senseless, a bunch of slaves, or those devoid of any good. The elders and dignitaries of his people have all turned away from him.” They would fabricate such lies to turn the person away right from the middle of the road. And the verse When they are told, ‘What is it that your Lord has sent down?’ They say, ‘Myths of the ancients,’ was revealed concerning this matter.

If such an individual, one whom God wished to guide, were to enter among the skeptics, he would respond: “We have come as ambassadors on behalf of our people, and what poor ambassadors we would be if, after traveling such a great distance —now less than a day’s journey away —we were to return without having met this man to hear what he has to say, so we could convey his message to our people. No, this cannot be; we must see this man and speak with him, then bring his news back to our people.” And this they did. Upon entering the city of Mecca, they would meet with the followers of that esteemed person and inquire, “What does Muḥammad say?” They would reply, “He speaks of goodness and gives glad tidings that for anyone who does good, there is prosperity and a comfortable life in this world, and certainly, the home in the afterlife, which is paradise, is even better.”

Author’s comment: The story seems credible, however the latter most part, which interprets the term ‘good’ as material wealth, is unacceptable.

8. In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī relates via his chain of narrators from Ṣafwān b. Yaḥyā, it is narrated that he said: I asked Abū al-Ḥasan, ‘What is the difference between the will of God and the will of His creatures?’ He replied, ‘The will of creatures consists of the intention within the heart and the actions that follow it, whereas the will of God Almighty is the act of bringing into existence and creating, nothing else. For God does not think or decide, and such attributes are far removed from His sacred essence. Indeed, these are the attributes of His creations. Thus, the will of God is His act itself, nothing else. Whatever He wills, He says ‘Be,’ and it is. Moreover, even this saying is not by voice or word, nor by intention or thought, and it cannot even be described how it is, for God is beyond the ‘how.’”
9. In al-Durr al-Manthūr, al-Suyūṭī reports that Aḥmad and Tirmidhī (who considered the chain of narration good), Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in the book Shuʿub al-Īmān, all have transmitted from Abū Dharr, who quotes the Messenger of God as saying: ‘God Almighty says to the children of Adam: “O children of Adam, all of you are sinners except for those whom I have forgiven. Therefore, seek My forgiveness, and I shall forgive you. All of you are needy except for those whom I have enriched. Hence, ask of Me, and I shall give to you. And all of you are astray except for those whom I have guided. Thus, ask for My guidance, and I shall guide you. And whoever seeks My forgiveness, knowing that I am able to forgive, I shall forgive him and I have no reservations in doing so.

And if the first and the last, the living and the dead, the moist and the dry among you were all to gather together to maintain the most wretched among you in his wretchedness, they would not diminish My dominion or power even by the weight of a mosquito. And if I wish, I can incline him toward good. And if the first and the last, the living and the dead, the moist and the dry among you were to unite their hearts to assist the most righteous among you, they would not increase My dominion or power even by the weight of a mosquito. Thus, your aid has no effect on the power of God. And if the first and the last, the living and the dead, the moist and the dry among you were all to ask of Me so that there would be no request left, and I were to grant the requests of all of you, it would not diminish from My vast sea of generosity even by the amount that a needle reduces from the sea when it enters the water. This is because I am Generous, Majestic, and Unique. My giving is a word and My punishment is a word. My command for something when I will it is merely to say ‘Be’, and it immediately comes into existence.’