Verses 1–8
بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate
The aim of the chapter is to remind by way of warning. The admonitory, fear-inspiring verses clearly outnumber the verses which give glad tidings. It contains stories which conclude with the doom of tyrants and those who reject God’s communications. It (also) incorporates clear arguments that leave no alternative for the minds but to believe in His Unity and answer the call of truth, and ultimately, (the chapter) describes, the horrors of the Hour and the stages during the resurrection which humanity will go through, the terrible state of the sinners and the loss suffered by wrongdoers. As alluded to by the context, the chapter begins with the Prophet being consoled not to tire his holy self out trying to get people to answer his call contained in the Qur’an—as it was not revealed for him to be burdened by it. On the contrary the divine revelation was to remind people, of God and His signs in the hope that their instinct of fear would be aroused and they would awaken, believe in Him and be god-fearing. The Prophet was under no obligation other than to convey the message—if they became apprehensive and remembered their Lord, it would ultimately be to their benefit. Otherwise exterminatory punishment would envelop them or they would be returned to their Lord burdened with the evil consequence of their wrongdoing and sin. Their deeds will be requited without their frustrating God with their tyranny or rejection.
The context of the verses gives the impression that the chapter is Meccan. Although, some oral traditions say that (the verse), Bear then patiently what they say () is Medinite. Others allege that, And do not stretch your eyes after that with which We have provided different classes of them … () is Medinite. However, the wording does not support these claims. One of the gems of verses in the chapter are His Words: God—there is no god but He; His are the very best names ().
Commentary
طه ١ مَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ لِتَشْقَىٰ ٢
(20:1-2) Ṭā Hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful.
Ṭā Hā are two of the alphabetical letters with which the chapter begins, similar to other chapters that begin with letters like Alif Lām Mīm, Alif Lām Rāʾ and their likes. Although, matters pertaining to these letters are beyond the scope of an exegetical discussion, the meaning of the two letters (Ṭā Hā) has been narrated on the authority of a number of exegetes and the same will be alluded to in the discourse on the relevant oral traditions, if God pleases.
Shaqāwah (unsuccessfulness) is the opposite of saʾādah (happiness). Ar-Raghib says: Shaqāwah can be classified exactly like saʾādah. Just as there are two types of happiness: happiness in the hereafter and happiness in this world and the latter is of three further types: spiritual, physical and external—unsuccessfulness too has the same classification.
Some say that shaqāʾ is used as a synonym for taʾab (tiredness) for example Shaqīt fī kadhā (I tired myself out doing such-and-such). All shaqāwah is taʾab but not all taʾab is shaqāwah. Thus, taʾab is more general than shaqāwah. It [the verse] means: “We have not revealed the Qur’an to you to tire yourself by making the people accept it as a part of your mission”.
إِلَّا تَذْكِرَةً لِمَنْ يَخْشَىٰ ٣
(20:3) Nay, it is a reminder to him who fears.
The word tadhkirah means to create remembrance in someone who has forgotten something. The inherent nature (fiṭra) of the human being instinctively grasps the existence of God , His Unity and necessary existence, His divinity and Lordship, the universal truth of religion, Prophethood, resurrection and the day of judgment. It is due to humanity’s attachment to the earth and the preoccupation with the world’s embellishments, which makes the hearts forget what was ingrained in their nature.
Presenting these truths draws humanity’s attention to them and is a reminder of what they had forgotten. Obviously that means that they had turned away from the truths. It was only referred to as forgetting, somewhat metaphorically, because both turning away from and forgetting have the same effect that is not paying attention to one’s affairs. To prevent this heedlessness which causes one to follow the worldly desires, the reminder provokes one to fear and dread due to the consequence of one’s actions. This will activate the soul and push it to devote itself utterly to the truth until remembrance takes its place and helps the person to adhere to the truth.
Based on the above, it is understandable why remembrance is qualified by, him who fears, and that this phrase refers to those who are apprehensive and whose hearts are receptive to the truth. It is such that if a reminder reaches them, fear will be roused in their hearts and they will believe. According to some views, the exception in illā tadhkirah (him who fears) is a discontinuous exception. It means: “We did not reveal the Qur’an to you for you to tire yourself out but instead as a reminder for someone whose disposition is to have fear and thus remember. He will then believe in God and guard against evil”.
The verse by itself suggests that tadhkirah is an infinitive that has a subject meaning here [that is a reminder]. It would be the object of, We have not revealed. Likewise, tanzīlan in the next verse is an object [that is, that which is revealed or sent down]. It would be a description of tadhkirah here, which refers to the Qur’an. It means: “We did not reveal the Qur’an for you to tire yourself with it, but rather to remind the fearful of the divine word sent down from His Presence”.
تَنْزِيلًا مِمَّنْ خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ وَالسَّمَاوَاتِ الْعُلَى ٤
(20:4) A revelation from Him Who created the earth and the high Heavens.
ʿUlā (high) is the plural of ʿulyā which is the feminine of aʿlā (higher) like fuḍlā and fuḍal (both meaning, more meritorious). The creation of the earth and high Heavens act as a relative clause and clarification of “Who sends down the revelation”, because the appropriateness of sending down (tanzīl) can only be achieved by having an elevated origin and low destination for this journey.
They [that is the Heavens and the earth] have been singled out for mention to the exclusion of everything else because what exists between them serves no purpose in this context. The only point is to explain the origin and destination of the revelation as opposed to, His is what is in the Heavens and what is in the earth and what is between them two, which aims to demonstrate that His ownership applies to everything.
الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ ٥
(20:5) The Beneficent (God) is firm in power (ʿalā al-ʿarsh istawāʾ).
Key Debate: “Firm in Power on the Throne” →
This is a theme in which the matter of Unity of Lordship is referred to, which is the core purpose of inviting and reminding and is comprised of these four verses () from, The Beneficent, to, His are the very best names. It was mentioned above [in Ar. vol. 8 and Eng. vol. 15] in reference to the verse (), … and He is firm in power; He throws the veil of night over the day, that, al-istiwāʾ ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh [lit. sitting on the throne] is an allusion to taking possession and the reins to regulate affairs.
With reference to God —compatible with His grandeur and holiness—His authority dominates over creation and His ownership is established over everything by regulating their affairs and addressing their concerns. Thus, His istawāʾ ʿalā al-ʿarsh means that His Ownership applies to everything and He regulates everything in the Heavens and on the earth, great and small, important and insignificant. He is the Lord of everything, One in His Lordship—and by Lord we mean nothing else but being the owner of a thing and the regulator of its affair. That is why reference to His istawāʾ ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh is followed by that to His all-encompassing ownership and knowledge. This is an explanation of the debate over the aforementioned “sitting” (istawāʾ).
It is well known that al-Raḥmān (The Beneficent) is an exaggerated form derived from raḥmah which means effusion through bringing into being and regulating. It renders a sense of multiplicity more compatible with istawāʾ than any of the other Names or Attributes of God and that is why it is singled out for mention. It is clear from the above that al-Raḥmān is the subject, the predicate of which is istawāʾ. Alā ʿal-ʿarsh is linked to istawāʾ. The aim is to clarify al-istawāʾ ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh. This can also be inferred from all the other (similar) verses. There was repeated discussion of al-istawāʾ alā ʿal-ʿarsh with regard to all of them, below are a few examples: … and He is firm in power (thumma [i]stawā ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh); He throws the veil of night over the day (); … and He is firm in power (thumma [i]stawā ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh), regulating the affair (); … and He mounted the throne (of authority) (thumma [i]stawā ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh); you have not besides Him any guardian (); and He is firm in power (thumma [i]stawā ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh); He knows that which goes deep down into the earth ().
Therefore, what some allegedly say is clearly incorrect, namely that al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh is the subject and predicate [thus meaning: The Beneficent is on the Throne]. Next, istawāʾ is a verb, the subject of which is, what is in the Heavens. Lahu (His) is the dependent object of istawāʾ. Everything’s istawāʾ to Him means that they proceed in conformity with His will and follow His command. The meaning of Throne (ʿArsh) has been fully discussed at the end of verse (in Ar. vol. 8). Some of the specific details will (also) be discussed in the relevant oral traditions, if God wills.
لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا وَمَا تَحْتَ الثَّرَىٰ ٦
(20:6) His is what is in the Heavens and what is in the earth and what is between them two and what is beneath the ground (al-tharā).
Tharā is said to mean moist earth or any earth. What is beneath the ground means what is in the belly of the earth but not on the surface. Thus, everything on the surface of the earth, its parts and what lives on it, refers to all that we know and which can be deduced by our senses, such as humanity and the different types of animals and plants and (also) that which we do not know or perceive.
If the ownership applies to everything in the Heavens and the earth, that is, its constituent parts, it also applies to the Heavens and the earth themselves because a thing (having material existence) is none other than its own constituent parts.
One of the two pillars of Lordship (rubūbīyyah)—namely ownership—has been explained above, for, accordingly, Lordship (rubūbīyyah) means ownership and regulation.
وَإِنْ تَجْهَرْ بِالْقَوْلِ فَإِنَّهُ يَعْلَمُ السِّرَّ وَأَخْفَى ٧
(20:7) And if you utter the saying aloud, then surely He knows the secret, and what is yet more hidden.
Al-jahr bi al-qawl means saying something in a raised voice (audibly) and al-Isrār has the opposite meaning. As He says: And conceal your word or manifest it … ().
Al-sirr means to keep words to oneself. Akhfā (more hidden) is superlative derived from khafāʾ (secrecy) as indicated by the escalation [from secret to more hidden] in the context of the verse. One should not pay attention to the claim by people that akhfā is a verb in the past tense the subject of which is He and thus the meaning rendered according to this interpretation is: He knows what is secret and hides His knowledge.
Making akhfā indefinite—by removing the definite article—emphasizes the secrecy. Reference in the verse firstly to manifesting one’s word then confirming knowledge of that which is subtler—namely secret—and escalating it to yet more hidden, indicates that the aim is to confirm His All-Encompassing knowledge. It means: No matter whether you manifest your word and declare what you mean—as if al-qawl means that which is on one’s mind because it normally only becomes apparent through speaking—or keep it secret to yourself and hide it, or, keep it more hidden even to the point that it is not known to you, verily God knows it.
The fundamental intention (aṣl) is to break down speech into audible, secret and more hidden and confirm that He knows them all, then place the confirmation of knowledge of the secret and more hidden in the next break down and respond concisely. He indicates the answer to the question in both limbs and in terms of something being even truer if the first thing is true, with brevity—as if to say: If you are asking about His knowledge of what you say audibly, He knows it. How can He not, given that He knows what is secret and even more hidden. This is nice construction (of the sentence). One [exegete] says that al-sirr (the secret) means your words which you hide from others and do not speak out audibly and akhfā minhu (more hidden than it) means what passes through your mind. Nevertheless, what he says is true about secrets. However speech is only referred to as sirr (secret) when it is suppressed in one’s self. Thus, the best explanation is as (we have) cited above.
Whatever the case may be, the verse confirms His All-Encompassing knowledge—be it manifest or secret. An example of referring to His knowledge after mentioning His being firm in power is: … and He is firm in power; He knows that which goes deep down into the earth and that which comes forth out of it ().
It is well known that His knowledge of what transpires in His Kingdom and the events which occur within the dominion of His authority require His pleasure and permission and from another perspective (require) His will for this flowing system—that is, regulation (tadbīr). Thus the verse confirms the comprehensiveness of His regulation just as the previous verse which confirms the comprehensiveness of His ownership. The sum total meaning (of the verses) is ownership and regulation. This is what absolute Lordship means. Thus the objective of the verses is to provide an explanation for and to prove His absolute Lordship.
اللَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ٨
(20:8) God—there is no god but He; His are the very best names (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā).
This verse appears to be the culmination of all the preceding verses. That is why it is most appropriate to interpret God’s name as the predicate of an implied subject, namely, this One, Who is referred to in the previous verses, is God—there is no god but He, etc. However, the most likely interpretation is that the verse is independent and comprehensive in its meaning, God’s name being the subject and, there is no god but He, is the subject of the predicate. His are the very best names, is a second predicate following the first one.
Whatever the case may be, God—there is no god but He, could be explained by what was confirmed in the previous verses—that God is One and the absolute Lord. Alternatively, it could be explained by what follows it, that is, His are the very best names. As for the first interpretation, it is because in the statement, There is no god (ilāh) but He, ilāh means either object of worship or true object of worship thus rendering a meaning of: God—there is no true object of worship in existence apart from Him. Being an object of worship is a corollary and concomitant to being the Lord because worship is a type of representation and mark of servitude, being owned by and showing need to Him. It is necessary for the object of worship to own His worshiper and to regulate his affair that is, to be a Lord to him. Because He is the Lord of everything and there is no Lord apart from Him, (therefore) He is the object of worship with none other apart from Him.
As for the second interpretation, it is because worship is (done) for one of the following (reasons):
- Hope of good which the object of worship possesses and is worshiped for acquiring it.
- Fear of evil resulting from being forsaken and his affair not cared for by the object of worship.
- It [the object of worship] is worthy of worship and subordinating oneself to it.
God is the owner of every source of goodness. Nothing can claim ownership over anything except that which has been bestowed upon him by Him . Notwithstanding, He is the absolute owner of that which He has made it owner of and the All-Powerful (al-Qādir) over what He has given power over. Unto Him belong the best of Names, from which all goodness emanates for He is the Bestower, the Granter of Favor, the Quickener, the Healer, the Provider, the Oft-Forgiving, the Merciful, the Rich, the Self-Sufficient. Therefore, He and no one else, deserves to be worshiped with the hope of being the recipient of the good that He possesses.
God is the Dominator, Whose sovereignty no one can resist. He is the strong Avenger, severe in punishment. No one can commit an aggression against another without His permission. Thus, He deserves to be worshiped out of fear of His Wrath even if one is not humbled by His Greatness and Grandeur. God alone is worthy of worship because the only thing that makes something worthy of being worshiped is perfection. Perfection alone is what deficiency concomitant to humility, submits. Therefore, it is either beauty to which the soul develops a strong attraction or majesty before which the mind prostrates and to which the heart becomes dazed. All grace belongs to Him—there is no essence which is not a sign of His Beauty. All majesty belongs to Him and any splendor is just a sign of His majesty. Thus, there is no god or object of worship apart from God because His are the very best names.
This means that every name which is synonymous with one of His attributes, is of the best names. Simply put, describing a name as good indicates that what it means—in morphological terminology—is an adjective like an active participle (or simple epithet) resembling [an active participle] as opposed to a proper noun. A proper noun in Arabic is called an ʿalam (or a flag), because it “flags” the essence, since the sole function of a proper noun is to refer to substances. To describe something as beautiful or ugly is the function of adjectives which explains the exterior of a word, such as just, unjust, knowledgeable and ignorant. Al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā are words that refer to extremely beautiful adjectival meanings like Everliving, Omniscient and Omnipotent. Describing can also be referred to as naming, for example His words, Say: Give them a name (), which means to describe them.
This is also demonstrated by His words: And God’s are the best names, therefore call on Him thereby, and leave alone those who violate the sanctity of His names (), signifying that they incline from truth towards falsehood and refer to Him by names, which are inappropriate for the domain of His Holiness. Thus, “the Best Names” are those which have an adjectival intent such as, God (al-Ilāh), Everliving, Omniscient and Omnipotent as opposed to the word “God” (Lafẓ al-Jalālah, or Word of Might), which is a proper noun of the Divine. Next, names are of two types:
- Unpleasing, such as, oppressor, tyrant or ignorant and
- Beautiful, such as, just and knowledgeable.
Beautiful Names are further divided into:
a) Those names which contain some elements of perfection and are not completely free of blemishes of deficiency and contingency, such as, handsome (ṣabīḥ al-manẓar), average height (muʿtadil al-qāmah) and curly-haired (jaʿd al-shaʿr)
b) The names which are unadulterated/untainted in perfection, such as, The Everliving (al-Ḥayy), Omniscient (al-ʿAlīm) and Omnipotent (al-Qādir) due to abstracting their meanings from the adulteration of matter and being composed of parts. They are the best names because they are free from any deficiency or flaw. They are the ones which are most appropriate to be used for Him and for Him to be described with.
This is not particular to one name or to the exclusion of any other. On the contrary, every best name is His —on account of the plural preceded by the definite article which indicates universality in His words: Lahu al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā. Putting the predicate first indicates exclusivity, so they are His alone. What it means for them to be His is that He owns them for Himself. Whichever of them can be found in anyone else is through His dispensing it as He pleases as indicated by the restrictive structure of the following verses: He is the Living, there is no god but He … (), … and He is the Knowing, the Powerful (). … He is the Hearing, the Seeing (), … that the power is wholly God’s (), … surely all honor is for God (), … and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases ().
There are other examples.
There is no harm in saying that His ownership applies to all of His Names and Attributes even those which are identical to His Essence such as the Everliving, the Omniscient, the Omnipotent and such as life, knowledge and power. This is because something may be attributed to His Self as property as in: My Lord! Surely I have no control (upon any) but my own self ().
Examining Narrations
- Majmaʾ al-bayān it says regarding the Words (of God), We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful: It is narrated that the Prophet used to lift up one of his feet during prayer to make himself more tired. Thereafter, God revealed: Ṭā Hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful. The same is also narrated on the authority of al-Ṣādiq
Author’s comment: The same is narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
- al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq said: When God’s Messenger used to pray, he would stand on the tips of his toes until they became swollen. Thereafter, God, the Exalted and Transcendent revealed: Step on it (Ṭāhā) (which means “O man” in the dialect of Ṭayy)—O, Muhammad—We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful. Nay, it is a reminder to him who fears.
Author’s comment: Something to the same effect is narrated on the authority of al-Bāqir and on the authority of ʿAlī. The same is also narrated on the authority of Ibn ʿAbbās.
- ʿAlī said: When (the words), O you who have wrapped up in your garments! Rise to pray in the night except a little (), was revealed to the Prophet he rose the whole night until his feet became swollen so he began lifting up one foot and planting the other. Thereafter, Gabriel descended and said: Step on it (Ṭāhā)—meaning (step on) the ground with your feet—O, Muhammad—We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful, and He revealed: therefore read what is easy of the Qur’an.
Author’s comment: The accepted opinion is that this narration is the original account of the story—the Prophet’s standing on his feet during prayer until they became swollen, then starting to lift one and planting the other or standing on the balls of his feet or the tips of his toes. In each of the narrations, part of the story is referred to as the reason for the revelation even though all the help in the world cannot make some of the narrations mean that. Still, two matters pertaining to this narration need to be addressed:
(i) It is difficult to understand how the verses apply to the story.
(ii) The part in the narration which says: Step on it (Ṭāhā)—meaning (step on) the ground with your feet—O, Muhammad.
Al-Qummī’s narration states something similar, Step on it (Ṭāhā)—O, Muhammad—We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful. Nay, it is a reminder to him who fears.
This would mean that Ṭāhā is direct speech comprising the imperative form of waṭaʾ (he trod), yaṭaʾ (he treads). Its object is the feminine pronoun referring to the ground, that is, “Step on (Ṭā) the ground and put both your feet on it. Do not lift one of them up and plant the other”.
The problem with this interpretation is that the end is incompatible with the beginning of the narration because the narration means that he would lift one foot up and plant the other during prayer after his feet became swollen, in the hope that it would relieve the pain from the foot he had lifted up, then he could get some rest and proceed to occupy himself with his Lord without any distractions. Thus, relieving his burden and tiredness in the circumstances could only be achieved by telling him to pray or stand less and not by telling him to plant both feet on the ground thus adding to his tiredness and making his pain more severe. Hence, saying: Step on it (Ṭāhā) would be incompatible with (the words), We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you may be unsuccessful. It may be that “that is, the ground with your feet” is the words of the narrator—the gist has been recounted.
Furthermore, it is at odds with the reported recitation based on Ṭā Hā being two alphabetical letters which have no lexical meaning like all the other alphabetical letters at the beginning of many Qur’anic chapters.
A group of exegetes claim that Ṭā Hā means: “O, man”. Then, one of them claims that it is Nabatean. Alternative claims are that it is Ethiopian, Hebrew, Syriac. It has also been attributed to the tribes ʿUkl and ʿAkk.
Alternatively it is claimed that it is the Qurayshi dialect. Al-Zamakhsharī believes it to be possible that it is the language of the tribe ʿAkk. Its original meaning is “O you (yāʾ hadhā)!” The yāʾ became transformed into a ṭāʾ, dhā was omitted for the sake of ease and it became Ṭāhā. It is alleged that it means: “O, Fulān! (So-and-So)” Some people pronounce it Ṭah that is with a fathah above the Ṭāʾ and a sukūn (a diacritic indicating a constant) above the hāʾ as if it is an imperative derived from waṭaʾa, yaṭaʾu (he trod, he treads), the hāʾ is pausative. It is (also) claimed that it is one of God’s names.
It is not necessary to pay attention to any of these opinions or to scrutinize them.
True, it is narrated on the authority of al-Thawrī that “Ṭā Hā” is one of the Prophet’s names just as other narrations say that “Yā Sīn” is also one of his names. Both names are narrated on the authority of Abu Jaʾfar. Because it is a Heavenly name, he was not called or known by it before the revelation of the Qur’an. It is not that “Ṭā Hā”, lexically, has an adjectival meaning, as it makes no sense to call him by a proper noun, which has no meaning apart from his self, when he already has another name by which he is well known. The truth about the alphabetical letters at the beginning of chapters is that they have symbolic meanings cast by God towards His Messenger. The chapter Ṭā Hā begins by addressing the Prophet : Ṭā Hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you … The chapter Yā Sīn is the same: Yā Sīn. I swear by the Qur’an full of wisdom most surely you are one of the Messengers unlike any other chapter which begins with alphabetical letters, which most likely denotes that the meaning symbolized by the alphabetical letters at the beginning of these two chapters is something attributable to his personality brought into effect by his very self. Thus, it is an adjective for an inward personality exclusive to him. Hence, it is one of his names . If something is said about him and Ṭā Hā or Yā Sīn is mentioned, what is meant is that the person being addressed is Ṭā Hā or Yā Sīn. Thereafter, it became a proper noun through extensive usage.
This suffices as an explanation of the narration. It comes under the category of nicknaming, like the famous nickname of “Taʾabbaa. Sharran” and like:
“I am a man well known and who rises to eminence, When I put down the turban, you will know me”.
Meaning: “I am someone people kept saying well-known, well-known about” until he became recognized as “Well-known”.
- [Imam] Musā ibn Jaʾfar was asked about God’s Words: al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ. He replied: (Figuratively speaking), He is “equidistant” from everything so nothing is closer to Him than anything else.
- Al-Qummī also narrates it in his exegesis on his authority and in al-Tawḥīd on his authority as well. The same is narrated in al-Kāfī and al-Tawḥīd on his authority with the addition of: No distant thing is distant from Him. No close thing is close to Him. He is “equidistant” from everything.
- Al-Iḥtijāj says on the authority of ʿAlī in the hadith on al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ: It means His regulation is firm and His command is raised.
Author’s comment: The exegesis in these three narrations is the exegesis of the whole verse, not the word istawāʾ alone. Otherwise, al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh would be a full sentence made up of a subject and predicate [that is, the Beneficent is on the Throne]. The context provided by all of the other verses mentioning istawāʾ is referred to above. What the last narration says supports that—that is, “His command is raised” after “His regulation is firm”—because its apparent meaning is that the universe is on the Throne so the narrations are based on the verse being an allusion to the authority of taking hold and spreading.
- al-Ṣādiq said: Whoever claims that God is from something or in something or on something has attributed partners [to Him]. He then said: Whoever claims that God is from something believes Him to be created. Whoever claims that He is in something claims that He is restricted. Whoever claims that He is on something believes Him to be carried.
- Al-Tawḥīd says in a long hadith on the authority of al-Ṣādiq which says inter alia: The man asking the question said: Al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ? al-Ṣādiq said: “Thus, how He described Himself. That is how He is in control of the Throne, distinct from His creation without the Throne carrying Him, without the Throne containing Him and without the Throne being special to Him. Hence, we say: He carries the Throne and holds the Throne. We say of that what He says: His Chair (kursiyy) extends over the Heavens and the earth (). We attest what He confirms regarding the Throne and Chair and deny the Throne or the Chair containing [Him] or His, Mighty and Sublime is He, having any need for a place or a thing which He is created. On the contrary, He created them in need of Him”.
Author’s comment: His words: “We attest what He confirms regarding the Throne and the Chair …” are an indication of the People of the Household’s methodology in interpreting Qur’anic verses capable of sustaining more than one interpretation (mutashābihāt) which refer to His Names, Attributes, Actions and extrasensory Signs, by considering them in the context of definitively decisive verses (muḥkamāt), clearing Him of what decisive verses absolve Him of and substantiating what is confirmed by the verse, that is, the bare meaning, stripped of any adulteration of deficiency or contingency that is refuted by the decisive verses.
Thus the ʿarsh is the place where the reins of power and the rulings issuing from a king begin and end. It is an elevated domed throne with wooden or metal fashioned supports upon which the king sits.
Next, decisive verses such as: … nothing like a likeness of Him () and Glory be to God (for freedom) from what they describe () show that He has no body or any physical characteristics. Thus it is denied that the Throne (ʿarsh) attributed to Him in (the verses): al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ () and Say: Who is the Lord of the seven Heavens and the Lord of the mighty Throne (ʿarsh)? () is a throne made of a specified material and is of a particular shape. The basic meaning remains, that is, it is the position from which the current rules in the universe’s system are issued. It is one of the levels of knowledge external to His Essence. The standard which is used to ascertain that what we have referred to as the fundamental meaning is that it is the purport which abides, so long as the name remains. In other words, it revolves around whether or not it is correct to continuously refer to something by a particular name, even if the physical manifestations are altered and the particulars are different.
An example of that is the first lamp which appeared—a device used to illuminate the darkness of the night. Its physical manifestation at that time was a container in which a wick was inserted into the tallow, thereafter the tip would be lit and it would burn the tallow it drew from and light up everything around it. Then the name was passed on to the likes of candles and gaslights and continued to be carried on to similar forms of light eventually settling today on the electrical lamp, which shares neither the substance nor the form of the original. It is just a device to light up the darkness and literally became known as a lamp. It is like the word, “weapon” which when it first appeared, was used to refer to a copper or bronze axe and today is virtually used to refer to anything from cannon to an atom bomb. This kind of change and development has spread into many instruments and activities that mankind deals with in his daily life. Generally, the Companions would only talk about laws and not other things pertaining to His Names, Attributes, Deeds and so on. They would only deny anything concomitant to anthropomorphism as per the decisive verses clearing Him of that. They would remain silent about affirming the meaning that remains after denying what is false. For example, they would say about, al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ, that istawāʾ in the sense of a body settling in a place by resting against it, cannot be said of Him . As for what istawāʾ actually means, (they say) God knows best. (In other words), the matter is left to Him. That is what their consensus claims. Indeed, one of them said the consensus of people for the first three centuries AH, was to follow tafwīḍ (consigning or delegating), meaning to negate everything concomitant to anthropomorphism and not talking about what is actually meant.
However, according to the oral traditions, this approach was refuted by the fact that the methodology of the People of the Household was to both affirm and negate (al-ithbāt wa al-nafy) and to discuss with scrutiny the facts of the religion, as opposed to simply saying that which it is not, without saying, what it is. Proof of that is, those of their oral traditions which have been preserved—are so numerous that only an arrogant person would deny them.
Indeed it is narrated on the authority of Umm Salamah regarding the meaning of istawāʾ : “Istawāʾ is not unknown. ‘How’ is inconceivable but attesting to it is faith whereas rejecting it is disbelief”. This proves that she believed in this view. If she had believed in what is attributed to the Companions she would have said: “Istawāʾ is unknown, ‘How’ is inconceivable”. The majority of Companions, early generations of Muslims (salaf) and their successors from among them follow this methodology. Al-Ghazali attributes it to the four Imams: Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, Al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad and also to al-Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī and Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī out of the compilers of hadith collections and to a number of illustrious early Muslims. What led them to maintain their silence on the meaning via positiva—according to many, is when that which is confirmed follows that which is denied and is at odds with the literal meaning of the wording, making it a figurative interpretation, the seeking of which is forbidden by God as in: () … and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except God based on there being a pause after the clause, except God. Some go further, saying that all exegesis is forbidden, claiming—as narrated by al-Alūsī—that whoever performs exegesis is interpreting. Whoever does not perform exegesis is not interpreting because interpretation is exegesis.
It was discussed above (in Eng. vol. 5) regarding the end part of the verse in Sūrah Āl ʿImrān (The Family of ʿImran), under the discourse on decisiveness and ambiguousness (al-muḥkamāt and al-mutashābihāt), that the interpretation referred to and forbidden is not the meaning contrary to the literal wording if the ambiguous (part) is referred to [or returned to] the decisive (part of the Book). Explaining the former through the latter is by no means “interpretation” (taʾwīl) because interpretation and exegesis are two different things.
Next, despite the people’s caution regarding religious explanations which refer to His Names and Attributes and restricting themselves to negating without affirming, they do not follow the same course in respect to what is stated in the Book and Sunnah when describing His acts such as, the Throne, the Chair, Veils, the Pen, the Tablet, Book of Deeds, Gates of Heaven, etc. even though they all have one common denominator, which is to disassociate Him from any form of need or contingence. This is because it is human need which brings about things like a throne, chair, tablet or pen. We create chairs and thrones to rest on and glorify ourselves in. We show distinction by way of glory and grandeur and represent the same by appointing a king or sultan. We have adopted tablets, pens and writing because of the pressing need to record that which we can no longer perceive or remember etc. So what is the difference between the ambiguous verses which mention that He has hearing, sight, a hand, a lower leg, is content or is sad—and which create the impression of corporealization and attributable to need and contingency, and those verses which state that He has a Throne, Chair, Host, Throne Bearers, Tablet and Pen and which create the impression of need and contingency? Then, what is the difference between a decisive verse which removes the ambiguity in the first group, that is, nothing like a likeness of Him () and the decisive verse which removes the ambiguity in the second group, that is, and God is He Who is the Self-sufficient? ()
True, Imam Rāzī makes an excuse for that, namely that if we were to open the door of interpretation with regard to these matters it would lead to the permissibility of interpreting all religious knowledge and laws of the Shariah which is what the esotericists (bāṭiniyyah) say. The reader knows that interpretation according to one’s own opinion, of everything, even the laws contained in the religious invitation and promulgated among the people by the Prophet’s teaching and edification is the rejection of a fundamental belief and arrogance towards what is intuitively known except what evidence has shown something to be ambiguous and there is a decisive verse to remove the ambiguity. Hence, leaving it [the ambiguity] to its literal meaning closes the door of interpretation with regard to all other decisive, non-ambiguous knowledge, like killing truth to kill falsehood. If one likes, one could say: “Killing falsehood by reviving another falsehood”. Furthermore, the reader knows that referring an ambiguous verse to a decisive one [to derive its intended meaning] is by no means interpretation according to one’s own opinion.
Necessity forced some of them to say that creating this exceptional luminous body—which dazzles the mind due to its greatness—in the shape of a throne with supports and bearers and placing it above the seven Heavens, without anyone sitting on it or having a need for it, and, maintaining it in that manner eternally, comes under the heading of grace created by God to inspire the believers so that they believe in it although unseen and be rewarded and recompensed in the hereafter. It is like the Tablet, the Pen and all other great signs which cannot be perceived. The invalidity of such opinion requires no further explanation.
After this group known as the mufawwiḍah (lit. those who delegate; that is, delegate knowledge to God) comes the class known as al-muʾawwilah (the interpreters). They are the ones who subscribe to carrying out exegesis of the ambiguous verses—verses on names and attributes both through positiva (affirming what it is) and through negativa (negating what it is not). They free Him of everything concomitant to need and contingency by interpreting it—by not taking it literally—in ways which conform with accepted principles of the religion or school of thought (madhhab). They are divided into the following categories:
(i) Those who content themselves through positiva, with exactly what they negate on the basis of evidence, are the ones who explain the Names and Attributes (of God) by negating flaws. Hence, according to them, knowledge means a lack of ignorance. One who knows, is one who is not ignorant, and so on with the other attributes. It means divesting the Transcendent Essence of the Attributes of Perfection, whereas rational proofs, the literal meanings and explicit extracts of the Scripture and Sunnah refute it. It is one of the opinions of the Sabians which has infiltrated into Islam.
(ii) Those who explain the verses with connotations which are contrary to their literal meanings but are deemed possible by reason or oral tradition which does not contradict accepted principles. It is—according to them—known as interpretation (taʾwīl).
(iii) Those who are content with the possibilities covered by oral tradition(s). They do not attach any significance to reason.
The reader will know from our discourse on decisive and ambiguous verses (in Eng. vol. 5) that exegesis of the Mighty Book other than with the Book and widely transmitted traditions (Sunnah) is an example of exegesis based on opinion which is forbidden in the Book and the Sunnah.
With regard to His actions which are not inferable to an attribute, most of the three groups known as the interpreters (al-muʾawwilah), hold the same view as the early Muslims, known as the mufawwiḍah, which is to keep them in accordance with their literal meanings—instances familiar to us.
As for that which can be inferred to an attribute, they apply their own opinion. Hence, with regard to His Words: al-Raḥmān ʿalā ʿal-ʿarsh istawāʾ they interpret istiwāʾ similarly to seizing (istīlāʾ) or taking possession (istiʿlāʾ). They maintain a familiar and literal interpretation of the ʿArsh—which is one of His actions that is not inferable to Attributes—that is, as a created body in the form of a domed throne with supports.
One tradition narrated by the Ahl al-Sunnah is that God descends to the earth’s Heaven every Thursday night. They interpret His descending as the bestowal of His mercy and construe the earth’s Heaven as the moon’s orbit and so forth. The reader will ascertain from the above that there is no justification or proof for interpreting a verse contrary to its literal meaning because the Book was not revealed as a puzzle or an enigma. Furthermore, the hadith is also divided into decisive and ambiguous sayings, just like the Holy Qur’an.
Maintaining a literal interpretation of the Qur’an by relying on a literal meaning just like in the hadith, is in reality referring what is ambiguous in the Qur’an to what is ambiguous in the hadith whereas we have been instructed to refer (or to return) that which is ambiguous in the Qur’an to the decisive part (of the Book). Their acting on these oral traditions and giving them preponderance over the literal meaning of the Book creates further ambiguity. That is because they are oral traditions which are narrated through a few chains (akhbār aḥād) and not through so many chains as to be widely transmitted (mutawātirah) or to have issued without a doubt (qatʿīyyat al-ṣudūr). For any of the oral traditions of this status—even authentic ones—to be acted upon they need to be accorded probative value by the Sharia through promulgation (jaʿl) or endorsement (imdaʾ). It has been made so clear in the study of legal presumptions (ʿIlm al-Usūl) as to be close to being a priori that probative value for oral traditions narrated by a few chains of narration is meaningless except in relation to laws for example doctrinal knowledge and external subjects. Therefore narrations transmitted en masse and those supported by contextual evidence of their indubitability, such as those heard and uttered by an Infallible are authoritative, even if they do not pertain to laws, because proof of infallibility is itself proof of their truthfulness. All these matters are resolved and can be found in the appropriate place(s) by anyone who wishes to take the time to verify them.
- A Bedouin man came to God’s Messenger and said: Souls have strived and property has been used up or exhausted so give us water. Verily we seek your intercession before God and we seek God’s intercession against you. Thereafter, God’s Messenger said: Woe unto you! Do you know what you are saying? God’s Messenger said: Subḥānallāh! (Glory be to God!) and carried on saying: Subḥanallāh! (Glory be to God!) until it was acknowledged on his Companions’ faces. He then said: Woe unto you! Do you know what God is? Verily God is atop His Throne and His Throne is above His Heavens like that. He [the man] said: By its fingers, it is like a dome. It squeaks the way a new saddle squeaks under the rider.
Author’s comment: The text is not free from defect and the only reason we have cited the narration is because it is one of the oral traditions with the most explicit physical descriptions of the Throne. Some of the narrations indicate that it has legs. Others state that it has four (standard) bearers. Some make mention of it being above the Heavens in line with the Kaʿbah. Others say that the Chair (Kursī) compared to the Throne (ʿArsh) is like a ring cast in the midst of wilderness, and the Heavens and the earth have the same relationship to the Chair. The method of exegesis employed by the Imams of the People of the Household when discussing these oral traditions was referred to above. We have cited many points in the exegesis of Sūrah al-Aʿrāf (The Elevated Places), which is in (Arabic) volume eight of this book, for their view to be inferred from it.
- al-Ṣādiq was asked about God’s Words, Mighty and Sublime is He: He knows the secret, and what is yet more hidden. He replied: The secret means what you keep to yourself and what is yet more hidden means what runs through your mind but which you were made to forget.
- Majmaʾ al-bayān says: It is narrated on the authority of—al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq: Secret means what you hid in yourself and more secret means what ran through your mind which you were made to forget.
al-Durr al-Manthūr on the authority of ʿAbd ibn Ḥāmid and Ibn al-Mundhir on the authority of al-Rabīʿ ibn Anas and also on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh ↩︎
Tafsīr, Al-Qummī through its chain of narration on the authority of Abū Baṣīr ↩︎
al-Kāfī via its chain of narration on the authority of Abū Baṣīr ↩︎
al-Iḥtijāj on the authority of Moses ibn Jaʾfar on the authority of his forefathers ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Mardawayh and al-Bayhaqī ↩︎
Al-Durr al-Manthūr cited by Ibn Mardawayh ↩︎
Rūḥ al-maʿānī on the authority al-Bāqir and according to Maʿānī al-akhbār via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Ṣādiq. ↩︎
al-Durr al-manthūr on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh on the authority of Sayf. ↩︎
Al-Iḥtijāj on the authority of al-Ḥasan ibn Rāshid. ↩︎
Via its chain of narration on the authority of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān ↩︎
Through a chain of narration back to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Hajjāj ↩︎
Al-Tawḥīd via its chain of narration on the authority of al-Mufaḍḍal ibn ʿUmar. ↩︎
Sunan Abī Dāwūd on the authority of Jubayr ibn Muḥammad ibn Jubayr ibn Mutʿim on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather. ↩︎
Now in English volumes 15 & 16. (Pub.) ↩︎
Maʿānī al-akhbār says via its chain of narration on the authority of Muḥammad ibn Muslim ↩︎