Verses 82–100

Chapter 17: Al-Isrāʾ (The Night Journey) · Printed edition: Volume 25, pp. 236–281

These verses go back once more to the topic of the Qur’an, how it is a sign of prophethood, and the mercy and blessing that it involves. This topic began above with the verse: Surely this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright… (), then it was resumed through a few verses later: And certainly We have repeated (warnings) in this Qur’an that they may be mindful… (); And when you recite the Qur’an… (); And nothing could have hindered Us that We should release signs… ().

These verses say that the Qur’an is a healing and mercy. In other words, it is a source of rectitude for those who have righteous souls, but a source of loss for the wrongdoers. It is a sign of prophethood that no one can match. Then the verses mention the people’s request for certain signs from the Prophet, the answer to their requests, and some relevant discussions in this regard.

The verses also refer to their question about the spirit and the answer to that.

Commentary

وَنُنَزِّلُ مِنَ ٱلْقُرْءَانِ مَا هُوَ شِفَآءٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ۙ وَلَا يَزِيدُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ إِلَّا خَسَارًا ٨٢

(17:82) And We reveal of the Qur’an (min al-Qur’an) that which is a healing (shifāʾ) and a mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust.

The particle min (“of” in “of the Qur’an”) is a descriptive one. It interprets “that which is a healing…” The meaning is: We reveal that which is a healing and mercy, and that is the Qur’an.

The Qur’an is classified here as a shifāʾ (healing, cure, remedy), and healing is applicable where there is illness. This shows that the hearts have certain conditions and states that the Qur’an’s relation to them would be that of a healing to illness. This is inferred from God’s Book where He says that the true religion is an innate component of mankind’s creation []. In terms of the physical body, one who is originally born full and healthy remains so throughout the different stages of his life as long he is not afflicted by unfavorable conditions and events that are not compatible with his initial wellness. Likewise, the original creation of mankind possesses certain true beliefs concerning the origin, the end, and what they implicate in terms of other fundamental beliefs, as well as moral virtues that are in harmony with those beliefs and which entail certain actions and traits accordingly.

Hence, man has a spiritual health and an inward well-being just as he has a physical well-being that pertains to his outward form. Any disorder in his spiritual health will cause a spiritual disease and illness, just as any disorder in his physical health will cause a physical disease and illness. Similarly, for every malady there is remedy, and for every disorder there is a cure.

God has described some believers as having a disease in their heart. This disease is something different than sheer disbelief or hypocrisy as it can be inferred from: If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while (), and: And that those in whose hearts is a disease and the unbelievers may say: What does Allah mean by this parable? ().

What is called disease here [in these Qur’anic verses] is nothing but what disturbs the heart’s stability and the soul’s consistency such as various forms of doubt and suspicion that agitate one inwardly, shake one’s inmost secret, and incline one to accept what is false and pursue his desires. Such disease does not contradict the faith of the majority of believers who hold the lowest levels of faith, but it counts as imperfection and polytheism compared to the higher levels of faith. He says: And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him) (12:196), and: But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission ().

Through its robust proofs and illuminating arguments, the Noble Qur’an removes every kind of doubt and misunderstanding that one may confront in pursuit of true beliefs and genuine teachings. Through its healing admonitions, stories, parables, lessons, promises, warnings, threats, glad tidings, laws and prescriptions, it dispels the diseases and defects of the hearts. Hence, the Qur’an is a healing for the believers.

Mercy (raḥmah) is a bestowal that perfects an imperfection and fulfills a need. The Qur’an is a mercy because it illuminates the hearts by the light of knowledge and certitude after removing the darkness of ignorance, blindness, doubt and agitation from the hearts. It also adorns the hearts by moral virtues and pure and noble spiritual states after cleansing them of the defilements of base qualities and evil characteristics.

Therefore, in the sense that it is a healing, the Qur’an removes various kinds of disease and ailment from the hearts, and in the sense that it is a mercy, it makes the hearts regain their missing health and soundness that they originally and innately possessed. It is a healing because it purifies the place [that is, the hearts] from barriers that prevent one from felicity, and prepares the grounds to receive salvation. It is mercy because it dresses one’s heart in the clothes of felicity and blesses it with the blessing of fortitude.

Thus, the Qur’an is a healing and mercy for the sick hearts, just as it is a guide and mercy to the souls that are not secure from misguidance. This clarifies why mercy is mentioned consequent to healing: A healing and a mercy to the believers (). It is similar to His words: And a guide and a mercy to a people who believe (); And forgiveness and mercy ().

Based on the above, the meaning of “And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers” is: We reveal to you something that removes and heals the diseases of the hearts, and brings back to them the state of well-being and soundness, so that these hearts may enjoy the blessing of felicity and honor.

…and it adds only to the perdition (khasāran) of the unjust (al-ẓālimīn): Given the context, what is meant here is the Qur’an’s impact on nonbelievers, in contradistinction to its splendid effect on the believers. Therefore, unlike what some exegetes have suggested, “the unjust” here means all unbelievers, not just polytheists in particular. The verse has mentioned their attribute instead of their name in order to show the cause of this. That is: The Qur’an adds to their perdition because they are unjust—that is, unbelievers.

Khasār means a loss of one’s capital or asset. This shows that the unbelievers initially have some asset, which is the innate religion that their unadulterated souls are originally inspired, but then this asset of theirs diminishes and they lose it due to disbelieving in God and His signs and communications.

Then their disbelief in the Qur’an and their unjust turning away from it will be additional loss and perdition—if there is anything of their innate gift left with them. That is why the verse says this in the form of an excepted negation: “It does not add to the unjust save perdition” instead of saying “It adds perdition to the unjust.”

Based on the above the gist of the verse is that the Qur’an adds to the health, soundness and felicity of the believers due to their belief, and if it adds anything to the unbelievers, it would only be loss and perdition.

The exegetes have suggested other meanings about both the first and the second halves of the verse that we shall pass. Interested readers should refer to their books of tafsīr.

One of their suggested interpretations is that healing in this verse includes the cure for both spiritual diseases—such as ignorance, doubt, hesitation, and moral vices—and physical diseases—by means of seeking blessing from the Qur’an in verbal and written forms.

There is no problem with this interpretation, but to be consistent, this line of reasoning should be applied not only to both the beginning of the verse, but also to the end. It means that just as the recitation and writing of the verses can protect [the believers] against pain and disease, they can also protect [them] against the injustice of the unjust and the machinations of the unbelievers. That is how the verses add to the perdition of the unjust, just as they benefit the believers by healing.

It should be noted that attributing the addition of perdition to the Qur’an is a metaphorical ascription, because in reality this added perdition is due to their own wrongdoing and evil voluntary decision.

وَإِذَآ أَنْعَمْنَا عَلَى ٱلْإِنسَـٰنِ أَعْرَضَ وَنَـَٔا بِجَانِبِهِۦ ۖ وَإِذَا مَسَّهُ ٱلشَّرُّ كَانَ يَـُٔوسًا ٨٣

(17:83) And when We bestow favor on man, he turns aside (aʿraḍa) and behaves proudly (naʾā bi-jānibihi), and when evil afflicts him, he is despairing.

Al-Mufradāt says:

ʿArḍ (width) is the opposite of ṭūl (length). Its original usage was for physical objects, but then it came to be used about other things as well… Aʿraḍa means to show one’s ʿarḍ, that is, one’s side. Aʿraḍa lī means that the side of something or someone showed up to me such that I can reach it. Aʿraḍa ʿannī means he turned away from me, an act that shows the person’s side.

Naʾy means distance. Naʾā bi-jānibihi means: He distanced himself and went far from us. Overall, “aʿraḍa wa naʾā bi-jānibihi” compares one’s condition in distancing himself and cutting from his Lord when He bestows favor upon him to one who turns his face aside from someone else and goes far away from him. Some exegetes have said that naʾā bi-jānibihi is a metaphorical way of describing pride and vainglory.

…and when evil afflicts him (massahu), he is despairing: That is: When evil afflicts him slightly—like a touch (mass)—he despairs and loses hope of good, that is, favor (niʿmah). Unlike the bestowal of favor, the verse does not attribute the affliction of evil to God in order to set Him clear from ascription of evil. Furthermore, evil is something relative, not absolute. What is considered as evil in the world—such as death, disease, poverty, loss, and so on—is evil only with respect to one who is afflicted with it; but with respect to others, especially the general system that governs the universe, it is good and it is something unavoidable in the general direction of affairs. What is intended primarily and for itself is good, which is a direct object of God’s decree. Evil is that which is intended accidentally [that is, not for itself]; it is decreed [by God] because of something else.

The implied meaning is: When We bestow favor on man, he gets caught up with the apparent means and clings to them as he is a being that lives in the world of means and instruments. As a result he forgets Us and fails to remember and thank Us. And when the slightest evil reaches him, he is stripped of some good, and he finds himself missing the means to that, then he intensely despairs of good. This is because he is attached to the means of good and now he sees the loss of those means but he does not see any role for his Lord in this.

This verse describes the condition of an ordinary individual living in a society that is governed by common norms and habits. If divine favors and blessings like wealth, power, children and so on are showered upon such an individual—that is, if he find the apparent means and instruments to achieve these blessings—then his heart attaches to those blessings and he becomes completely engaged with these means. This attachment and engagement leave him no opportunity to remember and thank his Lord for what He has blessed him with. On the other hand, if some evil afflicts such a person and he loses some of the blessings that he had been given, then he despairs of good. He is not solaced by any hope [in God] because in his view there are no means to good except the apparent ones, and he has completely lost them at that point.

This is different from the condition of an individual who maintains his primary nature (fiṭrah), whose mind is no adulterated by customs and conventions, and who is not governed by social norms and habits. This preservation of the primary nature can be either due to being constantly strengthened by a special aid from God, or by the occurrence of some distress and emergency that makes him forget the apparent means, return to his pure fiṭrah, call his Lord and ask Him to remove his distress. In other words, mankind can be in either of two conditions: 1. their innate state (fiṭrah), which guides them to turn to their Lord upon the affliction of distress and the occurrence of evil; and 2. their accustomed state, where the apparent means veil them from their Lord, keep them engaged, and prevent them from returning to Him by remembrance and gratitude. This verse describes the second state, not the first.

This shows that there is no contradiction between this verse and other verses that say mankind return to their Lord when they are afflicted by evil, such as what He said above: And when distress afflicts you in the sea, away go those whom you call on except He (), as well as: And when affliction touches a man, he calls on Us, whether lying on his side or sitting or standing… (), and so on.

This also shows the connection between this verse and the previous one: This verse connects to the last part of the previous verse: It adds only to the perdition of the unjust (). The implied meaning is: Loss and perdition is not far from these unjust individuals because their condition is that of being engaged by the apparent means whenever they are showered by divine favors, which results in them turning aside from their Lord and behaving proudly, and despairing whenever they are afflicted by evil.

Discourse

The discussion “A Philosophical Discussion: The Application of Divine Decree” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.

قُلْ كُلٌّ يَعْمَلُ عَلَىٰ شَاكِلَتِهِۦ فَرَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ هُوَ أَهْدَىٰ سَبِيلًا ٨٤

(17:84) Say: Every one acts according to his character (shākilatihi); but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.

According to al-Mufradāt, mushākalah is derived from shakl, which is to tie an animal. What is used to tie an animal is called a shikāl. Shākilah refers to one’s manner and character in the sense that it ties and restrains the person to follow what it dictates and implicates.

Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

Shākilah means way and path. When it is said that this road has shawākil, it means that it divides and branches into paths of different groups.

Apparently using the word shākilah for a path is because the path confines those who enter and follow it to stick to it and not transgress beyond it. It has also been said that shākilah is derived from shakl, meaning example. Others have said that it is derived from shikl, meaning form.

Either way, the verse is describing mankind’s action as a consequence of his shākilah, meaning that one’s action complies and agrees with his shākilah. The relation of shākilah to action is the relation of spirit to body. The spirit permeates the body and the body’s organs and movements reflect the immaterial shape of the spirit. It has been proven by experience as well as scientific studies that there is a special link between one’s spiritual [that is, psychological] characteristics and his actions. For example, in a situation of fear, a brave and lionhearted individual does not act the same way as a timid person. When it comes to charity and donation, a benevolent and generous person does not act the same way as stingy niggard, and so on. There is also some special relationship between one’s psychological characteristics and his physical makeup. For example, some physical temperaments are naturally prone to anger and love of vengeance. Others are quickly excited and burst in lust for food, sex or some other desire, such that the slightest incentive and stimulation will create a strong craving in the person’s soul for that desire. Thus, different individuals may be quick or slow with regard to different characteristics according to their personal makeups.

Despite this, these physical makeups that are in harmony with some characteristics and actions more so than others are not the complete cause of that characteristic or action, but are only at the level of propensity and tendency (iqtiḍāʾ) toward it. They do not annul one’s free will, and they do not reduce the possibility of acting otherwise to impossibility. Hence, one still has choice in his actions although some actions may be extremely difficult.

Contemplating God’s words confirm this, as He says: And as for the good land, its vegetation springs forth (abundantly) by the permission of its Lord, and (as for) that which is inferior (its herbage) comes forth but scantily (). Adding this verse to verses that assert the universality of the religious call—such as: And this Qur’an has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches ()—it can be clearly seen that the impact of one’s physical makeup and temperament on his traits and actions is at the level of propensity, not complete causation.

How could it be otherwise when God counts religion as something innate and a matter of our primary nature that is demanded by our fixed and unchanging creation? He says: Then set your face upright for religion in the right state—the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the right religion (), and: Then (as for) the way—He has made it easy (for him) (). If one’s primary nature (fiṭrah) calls him to the true religion and the balanced custom, it cannot be that his physical makeup would compel him—as a complete cause—to deviation and transgression from this balance.

Some have said that salvation and damnation are essential qualities of the individuals that are inseparable from their concomitants, just as evenness and oddness are inseparable essential qualities for four and three, respectively. Alternatively, they are ordained by an unavoidable eternal decree. As with the call of religions, it is only to complete [God’s] proof and argument against mankind, not that there is a possibility of change or a hope for transformation from one state to another, because the matter has already been determined and settled. He says: That he who would perish might perish by clear proof, and he who would live might live by clear proof ().

This is not true because the mere fact that some proof or argument is being presented proves that the salvation of the felicitous and the damnation of the wretched are not necessary concomitants of their essences. Otherwise, there would have been no need for any proof in order to apply them to their corresponding essences, because proofs are not applicable to the essential qualities of things. Therefore such proof and argument would be vain. And if salvation and damnation are concomitants of individuals by an eternal decree—not as essential qualities—then it would be the people who would have proof and argument against God [not vice versa]. That would again make His argument futile. God’s proof and arguments [against His servants] are applicable, and this shows that salvation and wretchedness are by no means necessary essential qualities of the individuals irrespective of their actions being good or bad, or their beliefs being true or false.

Furthermore, we see that the inherent human nature has led human beings to conduct their lives by means of education, training, warning, promise, threat, glad tiding, command, prohibition, and so on. This is the clearest proof which shows that the human being in and of himself is at the crossing point of two paths: one leading to salvation and the other leading to damnation, and it is possible for him to choose and follow the path that he wants and prefers. Every effort has an appropriate reward to it; He says: And that man shall have nothing but what he strives for-And that his striving shall soon be seen-Then shall he be rewarded for it with the fullest reward (). So far we said that one’s actions and characteristics are related to one’s essence. There is also another link: between one’s actions and characteristics and one’s external conditions, factors and circumstances. These factors are what constitute the environment and setting in which a person lives, and they fall beyond one’s essence. Some examples are inherited norms, customs, traditions and habits. They too urge the person to abide by them and not violate them. It does not take long before one forms a new paradigm in his mind according to these social and external conditions that surround him, and starts setting his life and actions according to them.

This relationship is also at the level of propensity and tendency, except that sometimes the vices or virtues that these factors create in one’s soul become so firmly rooted and established that there is no more hope in removing them. He has referred to this in His Book like where He says: Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them (), and so on. Meanwhile, this does not contradict the applicability of presenting proofs against them through religious call, warning and glad tiding, because the impossibility of this call having any impact on them is due to their evil choice, and a chosen impossibility does not contradict choice.

We can summarize the long discussion above as follows: Man has two shākilahs (character, makeup, formation) that one mounts on the other. He has an initial character which is according to the way he is created and how his body is composed. This gives him a personality and morality based on the interaction of his physical faculties—including one’s physical temperament (mizāj), which is one’s health condition that is a net result of several opposing factors and qualities in the body.

Then he has a second character, which is a personality and morality that is based on the impressions of one’s external conditions on his soul. This adds to his initial character—if there was any.

No matter what kind of character one has and what qualities have been actualized and realized in one’s soul, the person’s actions follow his character and are reflective and indicative of it. For example, if one is a proud and arrogant, then his speech, silence, standing, sitting, moving and stopping would be reflections of his character and allude to it. Likewise, the abasement and humiliation of an abased and humiliated person are evident in all of his actions, and the same goes with other characters like courage, timidity, generosity, stinginess, patience, dignity, rashness, and so on. How could it be otherwise when action is a representation of the actor, the apparent is a sign of the hidden, and the form is an indication of the meaning?

His words confirm this and His arguments in many places are based on this idea. For example He says: And the blind and the seeing are not alike, Nor the darkness and the light, Nor the shade and the heat, Neither are the living and the dead alike (); Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women (), and many other verses.

Whichever of the two meanings of shākilah that we take, the meaning of “Every one acts according to his character” () would be clear and decisive (muḥkam). However, this verse is said in a context where God was speaking of how He benefits and cures the believers by the Noble Qur’an and the call of truth, while He adds to the loss of the wrongdoers due to their wrongdoing, as He says: And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers, and it adds only to the perdition of the unjust (). Given this context, the second meaning of shākilah is more likely, which is one’s character, personality and morality that is the sum total of one’s physical makeup as well as the external factors that build one’s character.

It is as if the verse is an answer to an objection that may be raised here. Since God spoke about the believers obtaining healing and mercy from His Book while it only adds to the perdition of the unjust, one could object: Why does not God give that healing and mercy equally to both groups? Would that not achieve the purpose of messengership and benefit His call better? So He orders His Messenger to answer this objection here.

Thus He says: Say: Every one acts according to his character… (). That is: Your actions proceed from you according your current actualized character within you. Whoever possesses a just character will easily be guided to the right word and righteous act, and will benefit from the call of truth. And whoever possesses an unjust character will find it difficult to adopt the right word and righteous act, and the call of truth will only add to his perdition. Your Lord God—Who knows what you hold within and is the Director of your affairs—best knows who possesses a just character, is best guided in the path, and is closest to the word of truth. Likewise the one whom God has taught and informed [that is, His Prophet] also knows that it is indeed the believers who are best guided in the path. That is why the healing and mercy that accompany the Qur’an that He has sent down are exclusively for them, which leaves nothing but increased perdition for unbelievers—the unjust—unless they cease their injustice and thus benefit from the Qur’an.

This also shows why the verse says ahdā in comparative (lit. “better guided”). As mentioned above, one’s character does not necessitate him to follow the course that complies with it. Although an unjust character calls to misguidance and evil action, it does not necessitate it. In this sense it involves some trace of guidance, albeit weak. A just character would be more guided compared to that. Contemplate this.

Here is a summary of what al-Imam al-Rāzī has said in his Tafsīr:

This verse shows that the souls of human beings differ in terms of quiddity (māhiyyah). This is inferred because in the previous verse He said that the Qur’an brings about healing and mercy for some souls but perdition and failure for others, then He says right away: Say: Every one acts according to his character (). It means that the pure souls are such that they show signs of intelligence and perfection in reaction to the Qur’an, while the impure souls are such that they show signs of failure and misguidance. Much like the sun which causes salt to solidify and stiffen but causes fat or butter to soften, or makes the laundry man’s white clothes to glow whiter but tans the man’s face.

This can only be if the human souls differ in quiddity: some of them are pure and luminous such that the Qur’an adds light to their light, but some are dark and murky such that the Qur’an only adds loss to their loss and torment to their torment.

If it is proven that human souls differ in quiddity after their characters and properties are firmly rooted in them and their formation is fixed, then the above argument could apply at that stage. However, souls in their initial simple stage before the rootage of their acquired characters and second natures do not differ as much as necessitating different signs and reactions. Therefore, his argument does not apply to souls at that stage. At any rate, by now it should be clear to you [as we discussed in detail above] that the verse concerns the condition of mankind after the formation of his personal character and morality, which is a combination of his natural faculties as well as his external conditions that affect him, and this character of mankind calls for a certain course of action only at the level of propensity and tendency [not complete causation]. Contemplate this.

Discourse

The discussions “A Philosophical Discussion: Congruence Between Action and Actor”; “Continuing the Above Discussion from a Qur’anic Point of View” appear here in the printed volume. Read them in the Al-Mizan App.

وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ عَنِ ٱلرُّوحِ ۖ قُلِ ٱلرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّى وَمَآ أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا ٨٥

(17:85) And they ask you about the spirit (al-rūḥ). Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little.

Rūḥ (soul, spirit) is lexically defined as the source of life by which animals have sensation and voluntary movement. The term is used for both masculine and feminine. Sometimes it is used metaphorically for things that have good and desirable results, such as knowledge that is like life for the soul. He says: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life (), where life means being guided to faith. It is based on this meaning that some exegetes have interpreted rūḥ as revelation in the verse: He sends down the angels with the spirit (bil-rūḥ) of His commandment (). Likewise they have interpreted rūḥ as the Qur’an which is a revelation in the verse: And thus did We reveal to you a spirit (rūḥan) of Our command (). They have said that He has called the Qur’an and revelation “spirit” in the sense that they are the [true] life of souls that are otherwise dead, just as the conventional spirit is life for bodies that are otherwise dead.

At any rate, the term rūḥ has appeared repeatedly in many verses in His Book, both Meccan and Medinite verses, and it does not always mean the soul that is found in animals as the source of life by which the animal has sensation and voluntary movement. This is seen in verses like: The day on which the spirit (al-rūḥ) and the angels shall stand in ranks (), and: The angels and the spirit (al-rūḥ) descend in it by the permission of their Lord for every affair (). It is evident that rūḥ in these two verses is neither the animal soul nor the angels. We already quoted a hadith above [under verse ] where ʿAlī refers to the verse: He sends down the angels with the spirit (bil-rūḥ) by His commandment on whom He wills of His servants () in order to show that rūḥ is not the same as the angels. God has sometimes described rūḥ with the attribute of sanctity (quds) and sometimes with the attribute of trustworthiness (amānah), as we shall quote below. This shows the purity of the rūḥ from disloyalty and other spiritual impurities and defilements that are sometimes found in human souls.

Furthermore, even though the spirit is not the same as the angels, it accompanies them when they descend with revelation to convey God’s message. This is understood from His words: He sends down the angels with the spirit by His commandment on whom He wills of His servants ().

He also says: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel – for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah’s command (), where He attributes the revelation of Qur’an on the Prophet’s heart to Gabriel. Elsewhere He says: The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, upon your heart that you may be of the warners, in plain Arabic language (), and: Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth (), where He has attributed the same [act of revelation of Qur’an] to the spirit, which is something different than the angels, while the other verse [] attributes this to Gabriel, which is one of the angels. This shows that Gabriel descends with the spirit and the spirit is the one who carries this Qur’an which is read and recited.

The above explanation also clarifies the ambiguity in the verse: And thus did We reveal to you a spirit (rūḥan) of Our command (). What is meant by the “revelation of spirit” here is the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Prophet, which is accompanied by the revelation of Qur’an to him because the Holy Spirit is the carrier of the Qur’an as we just said. Therefore there is no need to interpret the spirit in this verse as the Qur’an as some exegetes have done.

Now, revelation is a covert communication, while the spirit, as we have defined, is a real external being. Yet, there is no problem in talking about the “revelation” of spirit [in verse ] because in the sense that these immaculate beings are God’s sacred creatures they are His word, much like what He has said about Jesus son of Mary: And His Word which He communicated to Mary and a spirit from Him (). In this verse, the spirit [that is, Jesus] has been called a “word” because a word is that which indicates an intended meaning. In like manner it is also permissible to call the spirit “revelation.” God has called Jesus “His word” because He was created directly by His word of existentiation [that is, “Be!”] without the involvement of the ordinary means in his creation. This is seen where He says: Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was ().

God has further clarified the reality of the spirit by saying, “Say: The spirit is of (min) the commands (amr) of my Lord” (). Apparently the particle min (lit. “of”) is indicative of the genus of the subject, meaning that the spirit is of the type and nature of divine command. The same sense of particle min applies to the other similar verses: He casts the spirit of (min) His command upon whom He pleases of His servants (); He sends down the angels with the spirit of (min) His command (); We reveal to you a spirit of (min) Our command (); The angels and the spirit descend in it by the permission of their Lord of (min) every affair ().

Then He has defined His command where He says: His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is. Therefore glory be to Him in Whose hand is the kingdom of all things (). This shows that His command is His address to something: “Be!” which is His existentiating word (kalimat al-ījād). Existentiation (ījād) is the existence of something but specifically in the sense that it is related to Him and depends on Him. Therefore, His word is the same as His action [of creation].

He says: And Our command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye (). This verse is part of the evidence to the idea that the existents are His words in the sense that they are related to Him irrespective of the physical means, because the verse first says that His command is one, and then compares it to the twinkling of an eye. This comparison is to deny gradualness. Thus we can know that there are two aspects to the things in the physical world: 1. a gradual aspect that is due to the involvement of physical means that operate in time and space; and 2. a non-gradual aspect that is beyond the domain of time and space. The second aspect is what makes something His command, word and speech. The first aspect—that is, the gradual aspect of things that is related to the physical means and corresponds to time and space—is called “creation” (khalq). He says: Surely His is the creation and the command (). Therefore, “command” is the existence of something in terms of its relation to Him alone [directly], and “creation” is the existence of something in terms of its relation to Him through physical means and instruments.

This can also be inferred from His words: Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was (), because the verse first mentions the “creation” aspect (khalq) of Adam and ties it to dust, which was a material means [in the creation of his body], but then mentions his existence without tying it to anything other than His word, “Be!” Contemplate this.

Another example is: Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh…then We caused it to grow into another creation (). Here He refers to the aspect of creation that does not involve any physical means as “another creation.”

The above discussion shows that the divine “command” (amr) is a transcendent existentiating word. It is an act of God that is exclusively attributable to Him without the involvement of any means and without any dimension of time, space, and so on.

Verses [quoted above] also show that His command in everything is the malakūt (dominion, kingdom) of that thing, where malakūt is an exaggerated form of mulk (kingdom, sovereignty). Therefore, there is a malakūt for everything just as there is a command for it. He says: Do they not consider the kingdom (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth (); And thus did We show Ibrahim the kingdom (malakūt) of the heavens and the earth (); The angels and the spirit descend in it by the permission of their Lord for every affair ().

Based on what we said above it should now be clear that God’s command is His existentiating word, which is an act of Him that exclusively belongs to Him without the involvement of any physical means and their gradual effects. The command is an existent that transcends the realm of nature and time. The spirit (al-rūḥ) has the same nature of existence as this command which belongs to the malakūt of things.

God has described the spirit in different ways throughout His Book. Sometimes He has mentioned it as a separate entity, like His words: The day on which the spirit (al-rūḥ) and the angels shall stand in rank (), and: To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit (al-rūḥ)… ().

Some verses show that the spirit sometimes accompanies the angels, like the verses that we discussed above: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel – for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's command (), The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, upon your heart (); Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it (), as well as: Then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man ().

There is also a spirit that is blown into mankind in general. He says: Then He made him complete and breathed into him of His spirit (), and: So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit (, ).

There is also a spirit that accompanies the believers, as deduced from His words: And whom He has strengthened with an inspiration (bi-rūḥin) from Him (). The following verse also implicitly suggests—or rather explicitly shows—this idea: Is he who was dead then We raised him to life and made for him a light by which he walks among the people (), because this verse talks about a new life, and life is an offshoot of spirit.

Some verses talk about the spirit that God descended upon the prophets, as seen in His words: He sends down the angels with the spirit (bil-rūḥ) by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning (); And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit (); And thus did We reveal to you a spirit (rūḥan) of our command () and so on.

We can also add the verses that talk about the life of non-human beings like animals and plants as alluding to spirit, because life is apparently a result of having a spirit.

Based on our elaborate discussion above, the meaning of “And they ask you about the spirit. Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord” () should now be clear. The question in this verse pertains to the nature and reality of the spirit in general as found in His Book. The answer given in the verse explains the reality of spirit as something that is of the nature of God’s command—in the sense that we said above.

…and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little: That is: The knowledge that God has given you about the spirit is only a little of a lot, for indeed you are veiled of the spirit’s lofty position, its wonderful characteristics, and its magnificent effects in the universe.

The exegetes have different views about the spirit (al-rūḥ) that is a subject of question and answer in this verse. Some have said: What is meant by spirit here is the spirit that God has mentioned in these verses: The day on which the spirit (al-rūḥ) and the angels shall stand in rank (), and: To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit (al-rūḥ)… (). However, they have not provided any reason for this.

Some have said: Spirit here means Gabriel, because God has named him spirit where He says: The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, upon your heart (). The problem with this is that merely calling Gabriel spirit in some place does not mean that wherever there is a mention of spirit it means Gabriel. In addition, this very naming [of Gabriel as spirit] has a special meaning that we discussed above. Otherwise, Jesus and Gabriel should have been the same because both have been called spirit.

Some have said: Rūḥ here means Qur’an, because God has named it rūḥ where He says: And thus did We reveal to you a spirit (rūḥan) of our command (). Thus, what is essentially being said is: “They inquire you about the Qur’an—whether it is from God or from yourself. So tell them in reply: It is of the command of my Lord; no one else can bring anything like it, which makes it a sign and miracle that shows the truth of the message. You have been given only a little share of knowledge about the Qur’an without encompassing it, and that is why you cannot bring anything like it.” These exegetes have argued that the next verse confirms this interpretation: And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you ().

The problem with this view is that as we just said, calling something rūḥ in some place does not mean that it is the intended meaning wherever there is a mention of rūḥ. Moreover, the claim that the Qur’an has been called rūḥ [in verse ] is not true, as we discussed above. Finally, this is not the only possible interpretation that complies with the next verse, but the verse also matches other interpretations [as discussed below].

Some have said: Rūḥ here means the human spirit which is the first meaning that comes to the mind when “the spirit” is mentioned in an unconditional form. Then, “Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord” is a way of abstaining from answering this question and advising the audience not to delve into the reality of the spirit, because it is part of God’s command that He has exclusively assigned to Himself and has not let anyone on its reality. Then the exegetes have disagreed about the reality of spirit. Some have claimed that it is a gaseous material substance that moves within the openings of the body. Some have said that it is a gaseous material substance in the shape of the body that has been incarnated in it and will leave the body upon its death. Some have said that it is an elementary part of the heart. Some have said that it is one of the accidents of the body. Some have said that it is the selfsame body, and so on.

The problem with this view is that this meaning is not the first meaning of al-rūḥ in the Qur’an that comes to the mind. Also, our discussion above refutes all of their subsequent claims.

Some have said: The verse is about al-rūḥ in an absolute sense in His Book. The question is about if this rūḥ is originated (muḥdath, ḥādith) or pre-eternal (qadīm). The answer is that it originates from His command, meaning that it is an act of God, and His acts are originated, not pre-eternal.

The first part of this claim—that the verse concerns all instances of rūḥ in His Book—is correct, but there is no evidence in the wording of the verse to justify the claim that the question and answer concern the rūḥ being originated or pre-eternal.

Then the exegetes have also disagreed about “The spirit is of the command of my Lord” (): some have taken this to be a positive answer to the question, and some have interpreted it as abstention from answering and deferring the question. This difference is based on their abovementioned views about the meaning of rūḥ, where some interpretations of the rūḥ imply the first view, and some of them necessitate the second. We referred to these implications above.

There is also disagreement about the audience of “You are not given aught of knowledge but a little” (). Some have said that it addresses the Jews—or alternatively Quraysh, on the assumption that they asked this question by the instruction of the Jews. Others have said that it addresses the Prophet and all of the people. The flow of the verse suggests that this is a continuation of the Prophet’s answer to the inquirers. These inquirers were the Jews because they were known at the time for [religious] knowledge and the verse implicitly confirms some level of knowledge for them. This does not apply to Quraysh and pagan Arabs because He has referred to them elsewhere as “those who have no knowledge.”

وَلَئِن شِئْنَا لَنَذْهَبَنَّ بِٱلَّذِىٓ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ لَا تَجِدُ لَكَ بِهِۦ عَلَيْنَا وَكِيلًا ٨٦

(17:86) And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector (wakīlan) against Us.

This verse is connected to the previous discussion. Even though the last verse was about the spirit in general—including all of its multiple aspects and levels—the topic of the previous verses was the Qur’an. Hence, the first and foremost application of spirit in the last verse would be the celestial spirit that descends on the Prophet and inspires the Qur’an to him.

The implied meaning—and God knows best—is: The spirit that descends to you and inspires the Qur’an to you belongs to Our command and is within Our power. And I swear that if We want We certainly take away this spirit, which is Our word that has been cast upon you, then you would not find anyone to be your guardian against Us, who would protect you, prosecute us and force Us to return what We have taken away from you.

This shows two points:

1. “That which We have revealed to you” refers to the divine spirit which is the same as the word that God has inspired to the Prophet as per the verse: And thus did We reveal to you a spirit (rūḥan) of our command ().

2. What is meant by wakīl (guardian, protector) here is someone who would rise on the Prophet’s behalf and demand back what God was taken away, as opposed to someone who would assist the Prophet in maintaining the Qur’an and reciting it. Some exegetes have favored the second view, which is based on interpreting “that which We have revealed to you” as the Qur’an, not as the descending spirit as we said in the previous point.

إِلَّا رَحْمَةً مِّن رَّبِّكَ ۚ إِنَّ فَضْلَهُۥ كَانَ عَلَيْكَ كَبِيرًا ٨٧

(17:87) But on account of mercy from your Lord—surely His grace to you is abundant.

This exception is made to an omitted idea that is implied by the context. It is essentially saying: You have not been given and chosen by what you have been given and chosen—in terms of the descent of the spirit upon you and its company of you—but on account of mercy from your Lord. Then He has justified this mercy by saying: surely His grace to you is abundant (), which is an expression of God’s grace and favor.

قُل لَّئِنِ ٱجْتَمَعَتِ ٱلْإِنسُ وَٱلْجِنُّ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَأْتُوا۟ بِمِثْلِ هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانِ لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِۦ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا ٨٨

(17:88) Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Qur’an, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders (ẓahīran) of others.

Ẓahīr means aider, helper, assistant. It is derived from ẓahr (lit. “back”), just like raʾīs (head, boss, manager) that is derived from raʾs (head). The repetition of “the like of” is an example of reiterating a noun instead of using a pronoun. The pronoun “it” refers to the Qur’an.

This verse is a clear case of challenging (taḥaddī). It is also patent that the challenge pertains to all of the Qur’an’s qualities of perfection, whether in terms of language or meaning, not just in terms of eloquence and rhetoric. This is because challenging to eloquence would not be applicable to non-Arabs, but the verse has included the gathering and cooperation of all men and jinn.

Furthermore, the verse clearly implies an ongoing challenge, while the leading figures of Arabic eloquence and rhetoric are extinct today and there is no sign of them anymore, yet the Qur’an remains as a miracle and continues to challenge others to bring the like of it as before.

وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلْقُرْءَانِ مِن كُلِّ مَثَلٍ فَأَبَىٰٓ أَكْثَرُ ٱلنَّاسِ إِلَّا كُفُورًا ٨٩

(17:89) And certainly We have explained (ṣarrafnā, from taṣrīf) for men in this Qur’an of (min) every kind of similitude (mathal), but most men (al-nās) do not consent to aught but ingratitude.

Taṣrīf of similitudes means repeating and reiterating them in different words and ways. Mathal is a description of the intended meaning in a way that illustrates it and approximates it in the mind of the audience. The particle min (lit. “of” or “from”) at the beginning of the phrase “of every kind of similitude” describes and identifies what has been explained in the Qur’an in different ways. It means: We have explained for them every kind of similitude that clarifies for them the true path and the way of faith and gratitude. This is inferred by contrast from what is said next: but most men do not consent to aught but ingratitude (kufūran) (). The verse involves a sense of blame and rebuke.

The verse explicitly repeats the noun “men” where it says “but most men” while it could have referred to them by a pronoun: “but most of them.” Perhaps this explicit mention is to indicate that this ingratitude is a result of them being al-nās (men, human beings), as per His words: And man (al-insān) is ever ungrateful ().

The implied meaning is: I swear that in this Qur’an We have repeatedly mentioned every kind of explanation and description that would clarify to them the truth, and would call them to belief and thankfulness toward Our blessings, but most people do not consent except to deny and not thank.

وَقَالُوا۟ لَن نُّؤْمِنَ لَكَ حَتَّىٰ تَفْجُرَ لَنَا مِنَ ٱلْأَرْضِ يَنۢبُوعًا ٩٠ أَوْ تَكُونَ لَكَ جَنَّةٌ مِّن نَّخِيلٍ وَعِنَبٍ فَتُفَجِّرَ ٱلْأَنْهَـٰرَ خِلَـٰلَهَا تَفْجِيرًا ٩١ أَوْ تُسْقِطَ ٱلسَّمَآءَ كَمَا زَعَمْتَ عَلَيْنَا كِسَفًا أَوْ تَأْتِىَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةِ قَبِيلًا ٩٢ أَوْ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيْتٌ مِّن زُخْرُفٍ أَوْ تَرْقَىٰ فِى ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَلَن نُّؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَـٰبًا نَّقْرَؤُهُۥ ۗ قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّى هَلْ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَّسُولًا ٩٣

(17:90-93) And they say: We will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain (yanbūʿan) to gush forth (tafjura, from fajr) from the earth for us. Or you should have a garden of palms and grapes in the midst of which (khilālahā) you should cause rivers to flow forth, gushing out. Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces (kisafan) as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us) (qabīlan). Or you should have a house of gold (zukhruf), or you should ascend (tarqā, from ruqiyy) into heaven, and we will not believe in your ascending (liruqiyyika) until you bring down to us a book which we may read. Say: Glory be to my Lord; am I aught but a mortal messenger?

Fajr means opening and split. Tafjīr has the same meaning, but it is more exaggerated in quality and quantity. Yanbūʿ is a spring that is never dried. Khilāl means in the middle, between. Kisaf is the plural of kisfah, like qiṭaʿ which is the plural of qiṭʿah, both in terms of form and meaning (that is, piece, part). Qabīlan means muqābil (in front, face to face) like ʿashīr which means muʿāshir (associate, companion). Zukhruf means gold. Ruqiyy means ascension and rise.

These verses describe the requested miracles of Quraysh from the Prophet as a condition for their belief. These requests show their derogation of the Qur’an which is an eternal miracle.

The meaning is: “And they”: that is, Quraysh, “say: We will by no means believe in you” O Muḥammad, “until you cause a fountain” whose water does not dry “to gush forth” and split “from the earth for us”: that is, from the land of Mecca which is very dry (). “Or you should have” through a miracle “a garden of palms and grapes in the midst of which”: in the middle of that garden, “you should cause rivers to flow forth, gushing out”: that is, cause the rivers to split open or make it flow (). “Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think”: a portion of the heaven, just as you have claimed. This refers to His words: Or bring down upon them a portion from the heaven (). “Or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us)”: right in front of us so that we can see and observe them (). “Or you should have a house of gold, or you should ascend” and rise “to heaven, and we will not believe in your ascending” and your rise “until you bring down to us” from there “a book which we may read” and recite ().

…Say: Glory be to my Lord; am I aught but a mortal messenger (basharan rasūlan)? Here God commands the Prophet to respond to their requests by informing them of their ignorance and defiance that are not hidden from any intelligent observer. Most of their tremendous requests of the Prophet are acts that cannot be executed except by a divine supernatural force, and some of them are essentially impossible, such as bringing God and the angels to them face to face. Moreover, they assumed the Prophet to be the one who is in charge of these acts and responsible for answering their requests, because they did not say: We will by no means believe in you until you ask your Lord to do such-and-such, but they always attributed the acts to him: “until you cause a fountain,” “Or you should have,” “Or you should cause the heaven to come down,” “Or you should bring Allah and the angels face to face,” “Or you should have a house of gold,” “Or you should ascend into heaven, and we will not believe in your ascending until you bring down to us a book which we may read.”

If they requested these things from him as a human being, then is there any human being who has such unlimited power and omnipotence that would even embrace actions that are essentially impossible? And if they requested these things from him on the grounds that he has claimed messengership, then messengership only means carrying God’s command and conveying His warnings and glad tidings. Otherwise, messengership does not necessitate the entrustment and delegation of divine authority and supernatural forces to the messenger so that he can create whatever he wishes and brings about anything that he wants. The Prophet himself did not claim such a position. Given the clarity of this matter it is very strange that they made such a request to begin with.

That is why God has ordered His Prophet to start his reply by first glorifying his Lord of the entrustment and delegation of His power to the Prophet, which is implied by their requests. It could also be that “Glory be to my Lord” is said as a sign of surprise, because this sense and usage of glorification also fits the current context.

The Prophet is ordered to then ask them rhetorically: Am I aught but a mortal messenger? (). This confirms the previous statement of “Glory be to my Lord” as a sign of surprise. It means: If you have requested these things from me and want me to do them for you, then I as Muḥammad am only a mortal, and no mortal is able to do these tasks. And if you have requested me to them because I am a messenger—or because I am claiming to be a messenger—then the role of a messenger is only to carrying and conveying the message, not carrying the absolute supernatural power [of God].

Based on the above, both qualities of being a “mortal” and being a “messenger” build toward the answer to their requests. Being a mortal refutes their expectation of him doing these acts out of his own power, and being a messenger rejects their expectation of him doing these tasks with an acquired power from his Lord.

Here is a summary of what one of the exegetes has said:

The main argument is: “Am I aught but a messenger?” But since they denied the possibility of mortals [that is human beings] becoming messengers, the word bashar (mortal, human) is added as preparation to refute this view. This is evidenced by the messengership of the previous messengers, because they were also mortals. Therefore the meaning is: I am but a messenger just like the rest of the messengers who did not perform any miracles except for what God performed at their hands without any entrustment or delegation, and without them having any claim against their Lord?

Including “mortal” and “messenger” jointly as part of the argument contravenes the narrations, because it has been narrated that they [the polytheists] asked the Prophet to ask his Lord to do such-and-such. They did not ask him to do these things of his own so that it would be rejected by pointing to his mortality. Moreover, if they are both part of the answer, then “messenger” would be a second predicate after “mortal” for the verb “am,” and having two consecutive predicates is against fluency of language.

There are a few problems with the above interpretation:

1. There is no evidence for “mortal” being a refutation of their view that mortals cannot be messengers. There is no explicit or implicit mention of this view in the verses above. Therefore this is an unsupported interpretation.

2. The suggested meaning that “I am but a messenger just like the rest of the messengers who did not perform…” implies that the main argument is “being similar to the other messengers,” which is different from the initial claim that “being a messenger” is the main argument. Also, it means that the main point of the verse’s argument—that is, “Similarity to the other messengers”—has been omitted, which ruins the flow of the verse. Contemplate this.

3. The claimed narrations about them [the polytheists] asking the Prophet to request from his Lord to do these miracles as opposed to them asking the Prophet to do them directly himself by no means can stand the explicit text of the Qur’an which says the opposite. God is explicitly quoting from them: “And they say: We will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain… in the midst of which you should cause rivers to flow forth… Or you should cause the heaven to come down…” This is indeed a strange fallacy with regard to narrations, because they are being given priority and authority over the Book of God notwithstanding their contradiction with it.

4. The exegete has not provided any reason for why having two consecutive predicates is against fluency of language.

وَمَا مَنَعَ ٱلنَّاسَ أَن يُؤْمِنُوٓا۟ إِذْ جَآءَهُمُ ٱلْهُدَىٰٓ إِلَّآ أَن قَالُوٓا۟ أَبَعَثَ ٱللَّهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُولًا ٩٤

(17:94) And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?

The question “What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?” is a rhetorical one that implies a negation and denial. This is a description of their belief, not that they necessarily spoke these exact words verbally.

Denying messengership while accepting God was characteristic of the polytheists. This shows that “people” in this verse means the polytheists, and “believing” means believing in God’s messengers.

The implied meaning is: What prevented the polytheists—which at the time included Quraysh and the majority of Arabs—from believing in messengership—or in your messengership [O Muḥammad]—was their denial of human messengers [that is, the messengership of human beings]. That is why they have ever rejected the calls of their messengers, as God has narrated from them: They said: If our Lord had pleased He would certainly have sent down angels, so we are surely unbelievers in that with which you are sent ().

قُل لَّوْ كَانَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مَلَـٰٓئِكَةٌ يَمْشُونَ مُطْمَئِنِّينَ لَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَلَكًا رَّسُولًا ٩٥

(17:95) Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.

This is a refutation of their claim that humans cannot be messengers and cannot receive revelation. God orders His Messenger to answer them by saying that the divine will has decreed to guide the people of the earth, and this guidance does not emerge from themselves but must be revealed from the heaven. Thus, the human beings living on earth are in need of a heavenly revelation that is brought down to them by a messenger angel, which should be received by a human prophet among them in particular.

This is a special characteristic of life “on the earth,” that is, material life. Such life is in need of divine guidance that is not accessible except by revelation from the heavens, such that even if there were angels residing in the earth and living a material life, then We would have sent down to them from the heaven an angel messenger, just as We have now sent an angel messenger to mankind.

As you can see the verse revolves around two central points:

1. life on earth is a material life; and

2. the guidance that God’s grace necessitates occurs through sending down revelation by the messengership of an angel. This is indeed the case, and these two facts are two essential premises in proving the truth and necessity of messengership.

The exegetes have insistently narrowed the meaning of the verse to the idea that a messenger must be of the same species as the target audience and should be one of them, like a human messenger for humans and an angel messenger for angels. This, however, is not such a fundamental aspect of messengership [relative to the two mentioned above] and that is why it is not explicitly mentioned in this noble verse.

This is because having a messenger from among themselves that educates and trains the people is also due to their life being an earthly and material one. Similarly, the very fact that there must be a human messenger for human beings is also due to the fact that revelation is brought down by a heavenly angel toward an earthly audience. What is special about material beings is that they necessarily differ from one another in terms of felicity and wretchedness, perfection and imperfection, and spiritual purity and impurity. As a result, only a human being who is pure and perfect can receive revelation from a heavenly angel: None shall touch it save the purified ones (). Therefore, even though angels descend on humankind as a species, the individual human beings that can touch base with them are only those persons that are pure from material defilements and impurities, and whom the devils cannot touch. These individuals are the human messengers.

Further explanation: The divine grace necessitates guiding every species to its perfection and felicity, and mankind is no exception to this universal rule. Mankind’s happiness is not achieved except by living a social life governed by laws and customs that ensure their happiness in this life and afterlife and settles the disagreements that necessarily arise between them. Now, since man is an intelligent being, he needs a means or faculty to receive these laws and customs. The human intellect that distinguishes between good and bad is not sufficient in this regard because the human intellect is the very cause of these differences and disagreements. Hence, there is no resolution for mankind [as a species, not as individuals] to have another form of intelligence by which they can receive what God bestows in terms of teachings and laws that remove their differences and ensure their perfection and happiness. This kind of intelligence (shuʿūr) is called revelation (waḥy) and the human being who possesses it is called a prophet.

This is a sound rational argument deduced from God’s Book. We discussed and elaborated it in our discussion about prophethood in vol. 2 [vol. 3 of the Eng. translation ], and in our discussion of Noah’s story in vol. 10 [vol. 20 of the Eng. translation ].

Our current verse of discussion—Say: Had there been in the earth angels… ()—adds to the above argument by saying that revelation to mankind must be through the descension of an angel from the heaven.

This is because this verse and the previous one essentially say that what prevents people from believing your messengership is that they deem it impossible for a human being to be God’s messenger. However, they are wrong in this because earthly life and God’s graceful care for the guidance of His servants necessitate that He sends an angel messenger from heaven to some of them, such that even if there were angels living in the earth like mankind then God would have again sent a messenger to them from the heaven to carry His revelation.

Based on the above we can deduce the following points:

1. The meaning of a human messenger: It is a person to whom an angel descends from the heaven with God’s religion, and who then conveys it to the people by God’s command.

2. The proof for messengership: The earthly life of mankind and God’s care for the guidance of His servants to reach their perfection require the descent of a religion to them from the heaven. In this process the angels are the instruments of bringing down heavenly blessings on earth. Thus religion necessarily descends upon mankind by means of an angel, and this is the messengership of angels. Then, the person who sees this angel and receives what it has brought would be the human messenger—and that cannot be all of the people because it requires inner purity and a spirit that is of God’s command.

The previous verse said: “What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?” (). It might have been more congruent with this phrase and wording to say here, “God would have certainly raised among them (fīhim) an angel as a messenger.” However, it says instead: “We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger” (). This expression is because of two reasons. First, it more decisively cuts through their doubt and misconception, because idolaters in general—including Hindus, Buddhists and Sabeans, as their scriptures testify—do not have much problem with the idea of a perfect man rising among mankind to bring them to perfection, called a savior or reformer. They are also fine with the descent of God to the earth and His appearance to mankind in the form of an earthly being, as they claim to have been the case of Buddha and Yudasif (Yudasp). Either way, they worship an angel, a jinn or a human being that is immersed in the divine, but not God.

However, they see it absolutely impossible for an angel to be sent as a messenger to mankind, and who brings a religion that calls to the worship of God alone. Angels are among their worshipped gods while God is not worshipped by them. Hence, the verse directly opposes their view by explicitly referring to the dispatch of a heavenly angel from God toward earthly human beings.

Second, the expression indicates that the angel is in fact sent to all human beings, except that only one of them—the human messenger— is fit for receiving revelation from it. As with the rest of mankind, they are deprived from this direct reception due to their lack of capacity and aptitude for it. Hence, this [that is, the descent of an angel with religion] is a universal grace for everyone, although it has particular recipients. He says: And the bounty of your Lord is not confined (), and: Allah best knows where He places His message ().

The meaning of risālah (messengership) inferred from this verse confirms what has been narrated from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt about the difference between a rasūl (apostle, messenger) and a nabī (prophet): A rasūl is one who sees the angel of revelation and hears its voice, while a nabī is one who only sees dreams but does not see the angel in wakefulness. We quoted some of these narrations in our discussion on prophethood in vol. 2 [vol. 3 of the Eng. translation].

A very succinct and remarkably subtle expression in this verse is referring to earthly life as: in the earth angels walking about as settlers (), because walking physically on the earth while being subject to gravity is one of the special characteristics of material life on the earth.

This verse and the last two all end with the world rasūlan (messenger). This is the only case in the Qur’an—as I remember—where three consecutive verses have the same ending.

قُلْ كَفَىٰ بِٱللَّهِ شَهِيدًۢا بَيْنِى وَبَيْنَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهِۦ خَبِيرًۢا بَصِيرًا ٩٦

(17:96) Say: Allah suffices as a witness between me and you; surely He is Aware of His servants, Seeing.

The previous verses provided arguments and clarified the matter for the polytheists about the miracle of the Prophet’s messengership which is the Qur’an, by which they have been challenged. Yet, they continued their defiance, denial, disregard, request for other baseless miracles, disrespect for the truth, and persistence on falsehood. Thus, here the Prophet is ordered to refer the matter to God’s witness, Who was witness over what went on between him and them. The Prophet conveyed what he was sent with, called, argued, and did not leave them any excuse. They, on the other hand, heard the message and God’s proof was completed against them, yet they rebelled defiantly. Therefore, this verse serves as a declaration of end of debate, stop of argument, and deferral of the case to the real Holder of command so that He may judge however He shall judge.

It has been suggested that the verse draws on God’s witness and testimony about the truth of the call and the authenticity of the Prophet’s messengership. So the verse is effectively saying: It is sufficient proof for me that God testifies to my messengership, for here is His Book saying so. If you say, “This is not His Book but you have fabricated it,” then bring something like it—but you will never be able to bring the like of it even if men and jinn help and assist you in it.

This aspect of God’s witness is true in its own right, but, as others have also noted, it does not comply with what follows next in the verse: “between me and you,” and: “surely He is Aware of His servants, Seeing” (). If the above was the intended meaning it should have said, “a witness for me against you” or “a witness over my messengership,” or something like that.

وَمَن يَهْدِ ٱللَّهُ فَهُوَ ٱلْمُهْتَدِ ۖ وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ مِن دُونِهِۦ ۖ وَنَحْشُرُهُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ عَلَىٰ وُجُوهِهِمْ عُمْيًا وَبُكْمًا وَصُمًّا ۖ مَّأْوَىٰهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَـٰهُمْ سَعِيرًا ٩٧

(17:97) And whomsoever Allah guides, he is the follower of the right way, and whomsoever He causes to err, you shall not find for him guardians besides Him;

Given the context, this is a continuation of the last verse’s address to the Prophet: Say: Allah suffices as a witness between me and you… (). It is a way of saying that the proof and argument has been completed against them. Their misguidance has become due, and there is no hope in their guidance any more.

The verse is essentially saying: Declare the end of argument with them, because indeed guidance is from God alone and no one has a say in it besides Him. The followers of the right way are those whom God guides, not anyone else. And if He misleads anyone—that is, does not guide him— then you O Muḥammad shall not find any other guardian that would guide him. And God does not guide these people [that is, Quraysh, and/or the polytheists], so cut off from them and do not impose on yourself to call them any further hoping that they may believe.

This shows that what some exegetes have said—that this verse is a new thread, not something that falls under “Say” in the previous verse—is not true.

It would have been more emphasized if the verse had said “guardian” (walī) in singular form, but it said “guardians” (awliyāʾ) in plural because if such people were to have any guardians besides God, it would have been either their gods—which are many—or other material means and instruments—which are also many.

And whomsoever Allah guides, he is the follower of the right way…: The address and tone in the previous verses was that of majestic plural but here it switches to the third person singular. Perhaps the reason for this is that if it were to say, “Whomsoever We guide… and whomsoever We cause to err” it would have suggested that the angels also have a share in guidance and misguidance, which would have contradicted what is said next: You shall not find for him guardians besides Him (). After all, the angels were considered guardians by the polytheists, and they used to worship them as gods.

وَمَن يَهْدِ ٱللَّهُ فَهُوَ ٱلْمُهْتَدِ ۖ وَمَن يُضْلِلْ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمْ أَوْلِيَآءَ مِن دُونِهِۦ ۖ وَنَحْشُرُهُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ عَلَىٰ وُجُوهِهِمْ عُمْيًا وَبُكْمًا وَصُمًّا ۖ مَّأْوَىٰهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَـٰهُمْ سَعِيرًا ٩٧ ذَٰلِكَ جَزَآؤُهُم بِأَنَّهُمْ كَفَرُوا۟ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَا وَقَالُوٓا۟ أَءِذَا كُنَّا عِظَـٰمًا وَرُفَـٰتًا أَءِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ خَلْقًا جَدِيدًا ٩٨

(17:97-98) …and We will gather them together on the day of resurrection on their faces, blind (ʿumyan) and dumb (bukman) and deaf (ṣumman); their abode is hell; whenever it becomes allayed (khabat, from khabw) We will add to their burning (saʿīran). This is their retribution because they disbelieved in Our communications and said, What! when we shall have become bones and decayed particles, shall we then indeed be raised up into a new creation?

ʿUmy, bukm and ṣumm are the plurals of aʿmā (blind), abkam (dumb) and aṣamm (deaf) respectively. The khabw of fire is when its flames settle and subside. Saʿīr means the flames of fire. This is their retribution because they disbelieved in Our communications and said, What! when we shall have become bones and decayed particles, shall we then indeed be raised up into a new creation? The meaning is clear.

أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا۟ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضَ قَادِرٌ عَلَىٰٓ أَن يَخْلُقَ مِثْلَهُمْ وَجَعَلَ لَهُمْ أَجَلًا لَّا رَيْبَ فِيهِ فَأَبَى ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ إِلَّا كُفُورًا ٩٩

(17:99) Do they not consider that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth, is able to create their like, and He has appointed for them a doom about which there is no doubt? But the unjust do not consent to aught but ingratitude (kufūran).

Kufūr means juḥūd (denial, rejection). This is an argument by Him for resurrection after death. Their argument was: What! when we shall have become bones and decayed particles, shall we then indeed be raised up into a new creation? () They viewed resurrection unlikely because they believed that it is impossible for this material body to be turned into a new creation after it has disintegrated and turned into bones and decayed particles. In response, God says that the creation of body in the first place proves God’s power to do this an act and other similar acts—such as a new creation for resurrection. The same rule applies to similars.

“Similarity” is only the case when the new body is compared to the first one, irrespective of the soul that maintains the oneness and individuation of the person. This does not mean that the otherworldly person is merely similar to the worldly person and not identical to him, because what determines sameness and individuality is the human soul [not the body], and the soul is preserved with God without annulment or annihilation. When this same soul is attached to a new creation, the person would be the exact same one as in this world, just like the case in this world where the person’s identity and individual oneness is maintained even though his entire body is ever changing.

The following verses are evidence to the fact that the soul, which is the reality of mankind, is preserved with God even when the person’s body disintegrates and his material form disappears: And they say: What! when we have become lost in the earth, shall we then certainly be in a new creation? Nay! they are disbelievers in the meeting of their Lord. Say: The angel of death who is given charge of you will take your soul in full (). Here, they argue against return to life by saying that it would be a restoration of creation after the person has disappeared by the disintegration of his body parts. Then they are told in response that the Angel of Death fully takes and completely captures the person, so he is neither lost nor decays. What is lost is only his body, and there is no problem with that because God will recreate it.

The claim that the person who is resurrected is exactly the same as the person in this world—and not the like or similar of it—is based on all of the verses about hereafter that talk about the return of mankind to God, resurrection, questioning, reckoning and retribution for actions.

These points show that “their like” in this verse [] only pertains to the body, as we interpreted above. The answer given in this verse based on the likeness of the two bodies corresponds to their argument which was only about the body, not the soul that is fully captured: What! when we shall have become bones and decayed particles, shall we then indeed be raised up into a new creation? () The two bodies irrespective of the soul would be likes, but with respect to the soul they would be identical.

Some exegetes have said that “like” here means “same.” For example it is said, “Someone like you should not do this,” which means, “You should not do this.” But this is open to question because apparently what is meant in this example is that someone like you should not do this because of the attributes that you have. Thus you should not do it either because you have the same attributes. Therefore, this expression is a way of negating an act indirectly based on negating the attributes that lead to that act. It is a stronger statement than simply saying, “You should not do this.”

…and He has appointed for them a doom (ajalan) about which there is no doubt…: Apparently ajal here means the time of death. Ajal either refers to one’s entire lifespan in the world, which is limited by death, or the end of one’s life just before death. Either way, reminding them of death, about which there is no doubt, is so that they take a lesson and stop defying God and denying His communications, because He is able to resurrect them and requite them for what they have done.

Therefore, this statement refers to what He said at the beginning of the last verse: This is their retribution because they disbelieved in Our communications (), and it is similar to the following verses: And (as to) those who reject Our communications, We draw them near (to destruction) by degrees from whence they know not… Do they not consider the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and whatever things Allah has created, and that may be their doom shall have drawn nigh; what announcement would they then believe in after this? ().

Some exegetes have said that “the appointed time” (ajal) here could be the Day of Resurrection. However, this does not match the context because the previous verse talked about their denial of resurrection and then it argued against them by referring to God’s power. Therefore it does not make sense to talk about the resurrection as something that is certain, “about which there is no doubt.”

Others have said that this statement—and He has appointed for them a doom about which there is no doubt—is another argument to prove the Day of Resurrection. However, whether we interpret ajal as the day of death or the Day of Resurrection it would not make a clear argument for the resurrection. Therefore there is no need to pursue this any further.

قُل لَّوْ أَنتُمْ تَمْلِكُونَ خَزَآئِنَ رَحْمَةِ رَبِّىٓ إِذًا لَّأَمْسَكْتُمْ خَشْيَةَ ٱلْإِنفَاقِ ۚ وَكَانَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ قَتُورًا ١٠٠

(17:100) Say: If you control the treasures of the mercy of my Lord, then you would withhold (them) from fear of spending, and man is niggardly (qatūran).

Qatūr has been interpreted as one who is stingy to the utmost degree. Majmaʿ al-bayān says:

Qatr means taḍyīq (tighten, restrict). It is used when one restrains and withholds in spending. Qatūr is an exaggerated form of this root.

This verse censures them for what prevents them from believing in human messengers, as it was narrated from them above: And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger? (). The meaning of the verse is clear.

Examining Narrations

(1) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: Indeed cure is only to be found in the knowledge of Qur’an, for He says: That which is a healing (shifāʾ) and a mercy to the believers ()…

(2) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “Intention is better than action. Rather, intention is indeed the very action.” Then he recited His words: Say: Every one acts according to his character () and said, “Or means according to his intention.”

Author’s comment: His statement that “Intention is indeed the very action” refers to their union as title and that which is titled.

(3) Imam al-Ṣādiq said: “The people of Fire stay there forever because their intention in this world was that if they were to live there forever they would disobey God forever. The people of Paradise stay there forever because their intention in this world was that if they were to live there forever they would obey God forever. Therefore, it is by their intentions that both groups remain where they are forever.” Then He recited His words: Say: Every one acts according to his character () and said: “That is, according to his intention.”

Author’s comment: This refers to the rooting of traits and the strengthening of characteristics in the soul to the point that the soul’s capacity for opposite traits is abolished. Al-ʿAyyāshī has also narrated this hadith in his Tafsīr, on the authority of Abū Hāshim, from Imam al-Ṣādiq.

(4) Concerning verse (And they ask you about the spirit…) it is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās said: Quraysh asked the Jews, “Give us something that we can ask this man.” They told them, “Ask him about the spirit (al-rūḥ).” So they asked him about it and it was revealed: And they ask you about the spirit. Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little (). The Jews then said, “We have been given great knowledge. We have been given the Torah, and whoever is given the Torah is indeed given great good.” So God revealed: Say: If the sea were ink for the words of my Lord, the sea would surely be consumed before the words of my Lord are exhausted, though We were to bring the like of that (sea) to add ().

Author’s comment: It has been narrated through other chains of transmission, on the authority of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Masʿūd and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbd-Allāh b. Umm al-Ḥakam: “This question was raised by the Jews in Medina, and that is where the verse was revealed.” However, this does not comply with the chapter being a Meccan one and the contextual uniformity of its verses.

(5) Concerning verse (And they ask you about the spirit…) it is narrated from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib: This is one of the angels that has seventy thousand faces; each face has seventy thousand tongues; each tongue speaks seventy thousand words. He glorifies God by all of these words, God creates an angel from each glorification, and he flies with the angels until the Day of Resurrection. Author’s comment: The spirit being one of the angels does not match several verses in the Qur’an such as: He sends down the angels with the spirit by His commandment (). Under verse we quoted a hadith from ʿAlī where he denies the spirit being an angel and quotes the verse as evidence. Therefore the matter of spirit should be taken from the following narrations:

(6) Abū Baṣīr said: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about God’s words: And they ask you about the spirit. Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord (). He said: “This is a creature that is greater than Gabriel and Michael. It was with the Messenger of God and then with the Imams. It is from malakūt (the realm of dominion, the angelic world).”

Author’s comment: There are also other narrations to this effect. This narration confirms our exposition about what is inferred from the verses of the Qur’an.

(7) Concerning verse (And they ask you about the spirit) it is narrated from Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq: Surely God is Aḥad (One) and Ṣamad—and ṣamad is that which has no jawf (belly, cavity, hollow). Indeed the spirit (al-rūḥ) is one of His creatures that has sight, power and support. God places it in the hearts of the messengers and believers.

Author’s comment: The first part of the narration intends to refute a possible misconception that God has a body and breath based on certain expressions like His words: And breathed into him of My spirit ().

(8) Abū Baṣīr has narrated from one of the two Imams [al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq]: I asked him about His words: And they ask you about the spirit. Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord (), “What is the spirit?” He said, “It is that which is in the animals and men.” I asked, “And what is that?” He said, “It is from malakūt, from [God’s] power.”

Author’s comment: These narrations confirm what we said above— that the spirit that is questioned about has an expansive reality with various grades. The last narration shows that apparently the animal soul is also something immaterial, from the divine realm.

(9) Ibn ʿAbbās said: The following individuals once gathered after sunset behind the Kaʿbah: ʿUtbah and Shaybah sons of Rabīʿah, Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, a man from Banī ʿAbd al-Dār, Abū al-Bakhtarī from Banī Asad, al-Aswad b. al-Muṭṭalib, Zamʿah [Rabīʿah] b. al-Aswad, al-Walīd b. al-Mughīrah, Abū Jahl b. Hishām, ʿAbd- Allāh b. Abī Umayyah, Umayyah b. Khalaf, al-ʿĀṣ b. Wāʾil, and Nabīh and Munabbih sons of al-Ḥajjāj al-Sahmī. They told one another, “Send someone to Muḥammad to talk to him and argue against him so that he may have no more excuse against you.” They sent a message to him saying, “Indeed the heads of your tribe have gathered to talk to you.” The Messenger of God hastened toward them as he thought that perhaps they have changed their mind, for he was very eager toward them, he wanted their rectitude, and their misguidance was grievous to him. He came and sat with them.

They said, “O Muḥammad! We have called you in order to leave no more excuse for you. By God we do not know any man from Arab having done to his tribe what you have done to yours. You have indeed cursed our fathers, disapproved our religion, accused our wits of folly, cursed our gods and divided our community. There is no evil that you have not done to us. If you have come up with this in order to acquire wealth, then we will raise money for you and make you the wealthiest among us. If you want mastery over us, then we will make you our master. If you want kingdom, then we will make you a king over us. If you do what you do because of a jinn that you see and overcomes you, then perhaps we can spend our wealth trying to find a cure for you so that you may be freed from this jinn, and thus leave you no more excuse.” The Messenger of God replied, “What you said does not apply to me. I have not come to you with what I have come seeking your possessions, wealth or kingdom. God has aroused me as a messenger toward you, has descended a book on me, and has commanded me to bring you warnings and glad tidings. I have conveyed the message of my Lord to you and have given you sincere admonition. Now, if you accept what I have brought for you then that will be your gain in this world and the hereafter, and if you return it back to me then I will wait for God’s command, until God judges between me and you.”

They said, “O Muḥammad! If you do not accept what we offered you, then you know that there is no people whose land is as constricted, that are poorer, and that live in more difficult conditions than us. So ask your Lord—that has sent you with what He has sent you—to move these mountains that have constricted us away from us, expand our town, flow rivers in it like the rivers in Syria and Iraq, and raise our fathers back to life. Among those who He resurrects there must be Quṣayy b. Kilāb, for he was a truthful old man and we can ask him whether what you are saying is true or false. If you do what we ask you and he confirms what you say, then we will confirm you as well. We will then recognize your position with God and accept that He has sent you as a messenger.”

The Messenger of God said, “I have not been sent to do such things. I have come to you from God only by that which He has sent me, and I have conveyed to you what I have been sent with. Now, if you accept what I have brought for you then that will be your gain in this world and the hereafter, and if you return it back to me then I will wait for God’s command, until God judges between me and you.”

They said, “If you do not do that for us, then choose one of the following for yourself if you are really a messenger as you claim: Ask your Lord to send an angel to confirm what you are saying and turn us away from you. Or ask Him to give you gardens, treasures and palaces of gold and silver that would make you solvent of your current condition that we see, because you go to the market and seek your livelihood just like us. Then we would know your position with your Lord.”

The Messenger of God said, “I am not the person who does so. I am not a person who would ask his Lord these things. I have not been sent to you for these matters, but God has sent me as a bearer of glad tiding and warning. Now, if you accept what I have brought for you then that will be your gain in this world and the hereafter, and if you return it back to me then I will wait for God’s command, until God judges between me and you.”

They said, “Then cause the heaven to come down upon us, just as you say that your Lord would do if He wills, because we will never believe in you unless you do this.” The Messenger of God said, “That is up to God to do this to you if He wills.”

They said, “O Muḥammad! [If you are truly God’s messenger] your Lord would have known that we will sit with you, ask you about what we asked, and request from you what we requested. So He would have sent to you and taught you what would turn us away from you beforehand. He would have informed you of what He shall do to us if we do not accept what you have brought to us. Indeed we have been told that there is this man in Yamāmah named al-Raḥmān who teaches you, but by God we will never ever believe in al-Raḥmān. We have left you no excuse, O Muḥammad. By God we will not let you go away with what you have done to us unless either we or you are destroyed.” One of them added, “We will never believe in you unless you bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us) ().”

When they said this the Messenger of God got up to leave. Then ʿAbd-Allāh b. Abī Umayyah also got up and said, “O Muḥammad! Your people offered you what they offered, but you did not accept it from them. Then they asked you certain things by which they may know your position with God, but you did not do it for them. Then they asked you to bring about the punishment by which you threaten them. By God I will never believe in you unless you take a ladder and ascend to the heaven in front of my eyes, then you come down and bring with you a book that is wide open, along with four angels that would testify that you are what you claim to be. By God even if you do this I do not think I would believe in you.”

Then he left the Messenger of God and the Messenger of God went back to his family in sorrow. Their defiance disappointed him of the hope that he had in them when they had called him. About what ʿAbd-Allāh b. Abī Umayyah had told him these verses were revealed: And they say: We will by no means believe in you… a mortal messenger? ()…

Author’s comment: The conversations, questions and answers in this narration do not match the apparent sense of the verses and the answers that are deduced from the verses, as we discussed above in our exposition.

It has been narrated through several Shia and Sunni chains that their representative who said these things to the Prophet was ʿAbd-Allāh b. Abī Umayyah al-Makhzūmī, the brother of Umm Salamah, the Prophet’s wife.

(10) Concerning verse (We will gather them together on the day of resurrection on their faces) it is narrated from Anas: Once someone asked, “O Messenger of God, how will the people be resurrected on their faces?” He said, “The one who has made them walk on their feet can make them walk on their faces.”

Author’s comment: There are also other narrations to this effect •

---

1. The current translation reflects this excepted negation by the use of the word “only.” (Trans.) ↩︎

2. It is a metaphorical ascription because their increased perdition occurs when they confront the Qur’an and disobey it. Therefore, it is as if the Qur’an has added to their error. (Trans.) ↩︎

3. Hence, shākilah can be translated as character, frame, makeup, or formation. (Trans.) ↩︎

4. This means that we cannot have a “four” that is not even. (Trans.) ↩︎

5. The first meaning of shākilah was one’s character according to the way he is created and how his body is composed. (Trans.) ↩︎

6. It could also be in superlative, meaning “best guided,” and the author’s point would still be applicable. The superlative and comparative forms in Arabic are the same. (Trans.) ↩︎

7. Another possibility is that ahdā here indicates taʿyīn, not tafḍīl. That is, it determines the quality of guidance (hidāyah) for one side alone, as opposed to asserting a higher degree of it for one side relative to the other. (Trans.) ↩︎

8. The above paragraphs are worth rereading and contemplation. They show the author’s masterful combination of all applications of rūḥ in the Qur’an in order to deduce a single consistent interpretation. (Trans.) ↩︎

9. A similar and more relevant verse in this regard is: Our word for a thing when We intend it, is only that We say to it, Be, and it is (). (Trans.) ↩︎

10. In these discussions the malakūt of something means its divine and transcendent aspect, as opposed to its material and temporal existence. (Trans.) ↩︎

11. . (Auth.) ↩︎

12. In other words, the pronoun “it” in “you would not find for it (bihi)” refers to “that which We have revealed to you.” Given the context of the verse, “you would not find for it any protector against Us” refers to protection against “taking away that which We have revealed to you,” and “that which We have revealed to you” could be either the Qur’an or the spirit that has brought the Qur’an. (Trans.) ↩︎

13. In other words, “the like of it” does not mean “the like of the like of the Qur’an,” but it simply means “the like of the Qur’an.” (Trans.) ↩︎

14. This is called min ibtidāʾ al-ghāyah, which marks the beginning of something and can best be translated as “from.” It is not a discriminatory “of” (min tabʿīḍiyyah) which would mean “some similitudes” because that would contradict the usage of the word kull (every, all) in the verse. (Trans.) ↩︎

15. Kufūr, from kufr, can be either the opposite of belief (that is, disbelief, denial) or the opposite of gratitude (that is, ingratitude). The author has taken in both possibilities. The Qur’anic usages of kafūr comply more with the second meaning. (Trans.) ↩︎

16. Therefore, this verse implicitly suggests that Chapter 34 (Sabaʾ) was revealed chronologically before Chapter 17 (al-Isrāʾ). (Auth.) ↩︎

17. Clearly what is meant by “heaven” in this verse and these discussions is the immaterial realm, as opposed to “earth” which signifies the world of nature, matter and time. (Trans.) ↩︎

18. The idea of gravity is deduced from the word muṭmaʾinnīn (as settlers, securely, at peace). (Trans.) ↩︎

19. Another similar example is verses , where three consecutive verses end with Rabb al-ʿālamīn (the Lord of the worlds). (Trans.) ↩︎

20. “No guardian” is a more emphasized negation than “no guardians” because the former negates both plural and singular while the latter does not contradict the existence of one guardian. (Trans.) ↩︎

21. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Masʿadat b. Ṣadaqa. ↩︎

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

23. In other words, we have a distinct title for “intention” but in reality it is action. It is an action of the heart, and since outward actions are a result of one’s intention, intention is the action. (Trans.) ↩︎

24. Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Hāshim. ↩︎

25. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, al-Tirmidhī—who has authenticated it, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Ḥibbān, Abū al-Shaykh in al-ʿAẓamah, al-Ḥākim—who has authenticated it, Ibn Mardawayh, Abū Nuʿaym and al-Bayhaqī—both in al-Dalāʾil. ↩︎

26. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn al-Anbāzī in al-Aḍdād, Abū al-Shaykh in al-ʿAẓamah, al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmāʾ wa al-ṣifāt. ↩︎

27. Al-Kāfī, with its chain of narration. ↩︎

28. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, on the authority of Zurārah and Ḥumrān. ↩︎

29. Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī. ↩︎

30. These two names have also been recorded as Munyah and Bunyah, respectively. See Tafsīr al-Qummī, 1:257 and 1:269. (Trans.) ↩︎

31. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim. ↩︎

32. Al-Durr al-manthūr, on the authority of Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Nasāʾī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Ḥakim, Abū Nuʿaym in al-Maʿrifah, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmāʾ wa al-ṣifāt. ↩︎