Verses 1–3
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate
The theme of this chapter is that the Prophet’s call is an authentic message, according to a Book and mission that have been sent to him from God. One of the central issues that is discussed elaborately in this chapter is the objections and criticisms that the disbelievers had raised against the Prophet being a messenger sent by God, as well as the Qur’an being a Book revealed by Him. The chapter returns to this topic repeatedly. This discussion is then followed by some arguments that prove monotheism and refute polytheism, some descriptions of the Day of Resurrection, and a mention of certain noble qualities in the believers. The chapter has an overall tone of warning and threat, not good news and glad tidings.
This is a Meccan chapter, as one can see from the tone and content of its verses. However, some exegetes have made an exception of three verses from it [as being Medinite], which are: And they who do not call upon another god with Allah… And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (). Apparently, these verses are excepted from being Meccan because they imply the prohibition of adultery. However, as we said in our discussion of narrations regarding the verse on wine in Sūrah al-Māʾidah (), adultery and wine were known for being prohibited in Islam from the onset of the Islamic religious call. What is stranger is that some exegetes have claimed that the entire chapter is Medinite, except for its first three verses: Blessed is He Who… raising (the dead) to life ().
Commentary
تَبارَكَ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْفُرْقانَ عَلى عَبْدِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِلْعالَمِينَ نَذِيراً ١
(25:1) Blessed is (tabāraka, from barakah) He Who sent down the Furqān upon His servant that he may be a warner (nadhīran, from indhār) to the nations (lil-ʿālamīn).
Barakah means “stability and subsistence of goodness” in something, such as the subsistence of water in a birkah (pond, pool). Barakah is derived from the phrase barak al-baʿīr, which is used when a camel places its chest on the ground and comes to a rest on it. Tabārak (as a verbal noun) is from the same root, meaning “subsistence and establishment of abundant good.” It has been said that the verbal pattern of tabārak [which is based on tafāʿul] indicates emphasis and exaggeration. This term is used almost exclusively for God; it is rarely ever applied to others.
Furqān is synonymous with farq (division, distinction, discrimination, difference). The Qur’an is called al-Furqān in the sense that: (1) its verses have been revealed separately; or (2) it distinguishes truth from falsehood. The second interpretation is confirmed by the fact that in the Qur’an, God has also called the Torah al-Furqān, even though the Torah was revealed at once. Al-Rāghib says in al-Mufradāt:
The word furqān is more expressive and stronger in meaning than farq, because furqān is only used when talking about a distinction between truth and falsehood. It is similar [in terms of form and meaning] to qanʿān [derived from qanaʿa: to suffice, to be content], which is a person whose judgment is taken to be sufficient. It is said that furqān is a noun, not verbal noun. The word farq is used more generally, including both the specific meaning [of dividing between truth and falsehood] and other meanings [that is, other kinds of division].
ʿĀlamūn is the plural of ʿālam, meaning khalq (creatures, creations). Al-Ṣiḥāḥ says: “ʿĀlam means khalq, and its plurals are ʿawālim and ʿālamūn, meaning various kinds of created beings.”
Although this term would include all creation—objects, plants, animals, humankind, the jinn and the angels—the context of the verse suggests that in this verse, it refers only to those creatures who are charged with religious duty. This would be humankind and the jinn, as much as we know. The reason for this qualification is that the verse says that the Qur’an was revealed for the purpose of warning.
One exegete has said: “This verse shows the universality of the Prophet’s mission to all beings other than God.” This interpretation is implausible given our explanation above. It neglects the fact that the Prophet’s mission in this verse is for the purpose of warning. ʿĀlamīn, in this verse, is similar to how it is used in these verses: And He has chosen you [O Mary] above the women of the world (al-ʿālamīn) (), and: And We favored them [the Israelites] above the nations (al-ʿālamīn) ().
It is said that nadhīr means mundhir (warner), and indhār is synonymous with takhwīf (to warn, to threaten, to frighten).
Blessed is He Who sent down the Furqān upon His servant…: That is: “Abundant good is well established and fixed, in the One Who has sent down the Furqān upon His servant Muḥammad.” This abundant good is something that benefits all of His creation. Therefore, saying that “abundant good is established and subsistent in God” is a way of referring to the emanation of good from Him upon His creatures. One case of this emanation is His revelation of a Book to His servant that divides between the truth and falsehood, saves all people from error, and leads them to guidance.
The verse incorporates the following points:
(1) The Qur’an is sent from God.
(2) The Prophet is a messenger from God and a warner to all nations.
(3) The Qur’an is a means of distinction between truth and falsehood.
(4) The Prophet is a servant of God. This means that he is only a slave of his Master, who is sent on a mission. Otherwise, he is not in charge of anything himself.
All of these points prepare the grounds to address the polytheists’ objections and criticisms against the Qur’an and the Prophet in the following verses. They claimed that the Qur’an was a fabricated lie ascribed to God by the Prophet, who had been helped by others in doing so. They also criticized the Prophet for being an ordinary person who eats food and walks in the markets. They also made other claims which the Qur’an answers below.
Overall, the verse is saying that, through its evident proofs, this Book separates truth from falsehood. This means that the Noble Qur’an is true itself, because something that is false cannot separate truth from falsehood; rather, it assimilates falsehood to truth in order to deceive people into accepting it. The verse also says that the messenger who has brought the Book is an obedient servant of God, who warns the people with it and calls them to the truth. Thus, he is a true messenger, because if he were false, he would not call to the truth, but would deviate and diverge from it. Besides the above argument [based on the Qur’an being a furqān], the truth of the Prophet’s messengership and the authenticity of his Book are attested to by God in His miraculous Book.
Some exegetes have said: “Furqān” refers to all divine scriptures that were sent to the prophets, and “servant” refers to all the prophets in general.
However, this view cannot be easily inferred from the apparent text of the verse.
… that he may be (li-yakūna) a warner to the nations (lil-ʿālamīn): The letter lām in li-yakūna indicates taʿlīl (justification, explanation). It means that the purpose of sending the Furqān upon His servant—the Prophet—was so that he may be a warner to all the nations, from humankind and the jinn. Al-ʿālamīn is a plural that is preceded with the article al-, which indicates total inclusion (istighrāq) [of all humankind and jinn]. Using such a comprehensive term also implies that everyone has a single God, unlike the belief and practice of the polytheists, where every community had a god for itself, which was different from the god of other communities.
The verse only refers to the aspect of warning (indhār), but not the aspect of good news and glad tidings (tabshīr) [even though the Prophet’s call involved both elements]. This is according to tone and theme of the verse, which is meant to convey threat and warning.
الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّماواتِ وَ الْأَرْضِ وَ لَمْ يَتَّخِذْ وَلَداً وَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ شَرِيكٌ فِي الْمُلْكِ وَ خَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيراً ٢
(25:2) He, Whose is the kingdom (mulk) of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take to Himself a son, and Who has no associate in the kingdom, and Who created everything, then determined it in a precise measure.
The words milk and mulk mean “having authority over something such that one can manage, utilize and decide about it as he wants.” This comes in two forms: (1) Sometimes it is in the form of a possession that one owns, such that the owner can use his possession however he wants to. (2) Sometimes it is in the form of having authority and dominion over someone else, such that the suprior can command, prohibit, and make judgments over the inferior. One example for the latter form of possession is the authority and dominion of a king over his subjects and citizens, including their possessions. This type is referred to as mulk. Therefore, milk is broader and more inclusive than mulk. As al-Rāghib says:
Malik (lit. “king, ruler”) is one who can issue orders about what the public should do and what they should not do. This is specifically applicable to ruling and managing intelligent beings. That is why it is said, “the king of people” (malik al-nās) but it is not said, “the king of things” (malik al-ashyāʾ)…
Mulk is to have control over something by authority and command, while milk is like a genus or a general category for mulk. Hence, every mulk is also milk, but not vice versa. Sometimes milk is exclusively used for possession and ownership, while mulk is exclusively used for other cases [of rule and authority].
He, Whose is (lahu) the kingdom of the heavens and the earth…: The letter lām in lahu shows exclusivity. It means that the heavens and the earth belong to Him; they are not independent from Him in any way whatsoever, and are not needless of His authority, direction and management. God is the only One Who wields authority over the heavens and the earth, and making them function as they do. He is the absolute Master and the sole King Who manages them by His command.
The above should clarify why the verse then says: and Who did not take to Himself a son. An absolute king—in every affair and aspect—does not need to take a child to himself. Adopting a child is because of either of two reasons:
(1) The king is incapable of managing all his affairs and cannot direct everything on his own, thus he adopts a child to help him in his tasks and plans. This is not applicable to God, because God has dominion and power over everything.
(2) The person has a limited lifespan, which means that he possesses what he owns only for a limited time. Thus he adopts a child to succeed him, and to take his place after him. However, God owns everything eternally, and is not subject to death or destruction. Therefore, He certainly has no need of taking a successor for Himself. This sentence involves a refutation of the polytheists and the Christians.
… and Who has no associate in the kingdom…: This is similar to the previous sentence; needing an associate or a partner happens when one does not or cannot have command over everything by himself. However, God’s command encompasses all beings, and applies to all of their modes of existence. Nothing escapes from His authority. This involves a refutation of the polytheists’ beliefs.
… and Who created everything, then determined it in a precise measure: The direction and management of all affairs trace back to Him alone. This includes: (1) how things are created and brought into existence (khalq); and (2) how they are given shape and measure (taqdīr). Thus, He is the Lord of everyone, and there is no lord but Him.
To explain the above theory, it should be noted that the creation of things is through means and instruments that occur before them or with them. This necessitates an interconnection between the beings. As a result, everything is confined in its existence and existential properties, according to the means and causes that should come before it or with it. Therefore, the events that occur in the visible world are not separable from the creation of things, and they follow the causes and means that occur before them or with them. Meanwhile, there is no creator but God. Hence, no one directs the affairs in the universe other than Him. This means that there is no lord that owns and directs everything, except for God.
If the kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs to Him, in the sense that He rules them and wields absolute authority over them, then it follows that He must also be the One Who upholds the creation. Had there been any other upholder who maintained the creation, the kingdom of the universe would also belong to that being. Creation, in turn, necessitates ordainment of measure, because ordainment is an offshoot of creation. Finally, if God is the One Who has measured and apportioned things, it follows that the direction of affairs (tadbīr) is also in His hands. Therefore, He is both the King and the Director: two constituent qualities that amount to Him being the Lord (rabb).
Therefore, the ascription of creation and measurement to God is a direct consequence of His kingdom of the heavens and the earth [that is, the entire world of creation]. However, the verse did not suffice in mentioning God’s kingdom because the idolaters already admitted it. They believed in God’s universal kingdom, meaning that He is the overall Ruler and Lord of everything, but they also believed in the partial rule and lordship of their gods, over certain parts of the universe, by God’s entrustment and delegation. They believed that each of their gods is a king in its own domain and a lord over its own subjects, while God is the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and the God of gods. That is why, in order to prove the exclusivity of lordship to God, the verse did not suffice to saying: He, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. Instead, it had to add: and Who created everything, then determined it in a precise measure.
It is as if the verse is answering the following objection: “Let us assume that God’s kingdom of the heavens and the earth makes Him needless of adopting a child or partner in a way that would reduce and limit His dominion over certain things. But what is the problem with saying that He has adopted associates for Himself by entrusting and delegating certain affairs of the universe to them, while He is still the ultimate Owner and Lord over them and over what He has entrusted them with?” This objection constituted the belief of the polytheists. That is why, in their hajj formula of talbiyah they used to say, “Here I come (labbayka); there is no partner for You except a partner that is Yours: You own him and what he owns.”
The verse answers the above objection by saying that creation belongs to God, and the ordainment of measures is also inseparable from creation. These two add up to tadbīr (management, regulation, direction of affairs). Hence, the direction of everything belongs to Him, meaning that there is no kingdom or lordship other than His.
It should thus be clear that the first part of the verse—He, Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and Who did not take to Himself a son, and Who has no associate in the kingdom—proves God’s unity in lordship, and refutes Him having a child or partner through affirming His absolute kingdom over everything. Then, the subsequent part of the verse—and Who created everything, then determined it in a precise measure—explains and elaborates the meaning of God’s universal kingdom. It says that such a kingdom hinges on creation and measurement. A corollary of this sense and kind of kingdom is that He must be in charge of every rule and direction; it is not logically perceivable that He would entrust any affair to any of His creatures.
The exegetes have had other discussions on this verse and the previous one, but we shall skip them because they are not beneficial.
وَ اتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ آلِهَةً لا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئاً وَ هُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ وَ لا يَمْلِكُونَ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ ضَرًّا وَ لا نَفْعاً وَ لا يَمْلِكُونَ مَوْتاً وَ لا حَياةً وَ لا نُشُوراً٣
(25:3) And they have taken besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created, and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life.
In the previous verses, God described Himself as the Creator and Designer of everything, and as the One Who possesses the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. Given these qualities, He must be the god which is served and worshiped. That is why, in this verse, He points to where the polytheists had erred: they were serving and worshiping idols that have not created anything, but are themselves created. Their gods also did not control anything for themselves nor others.
And they have taken…: The pronoun “they” here, refers to the polytheists, even though they were not named above. Such expression [that is, using a pronoun for a noun that is not explicitly identified] implies humiliation and derogation.
… besides Him gods, who do not create anything while they are themselves created…: This refers to the idols that the polytheists used to make, by carving or other ways. They are called “gods” in the verse, but then described as: who do not create anything while they are themselves created. This shows that they are only given the name of a “god” by the idolaters, but they do not have any real characteristic of a god. He says: They are naught but names which you have named; you and your fathers ().
… who do not create anything (shayʾan)…: The usage of the indefinite form (nakirah) in a negation underscores the verse’s rebuke against the polytheists for turning away from God, Who is the Creator of everything, and instead, clinging to idols that have not created anything whatsoever. In fact, their gods are even more abject than that, because they are themselves created by their own worshipers, and are a result of the imagination of their worshipers. The same idea [of using the indefinite form (nakirah) in a negation] applies to the rest of the verse: any harm or profit… not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life.
…and they control not for themselves any harm or profit, and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life: If a being is to be adopted and served as a god, it must necessarily be in charge of some good. However, this sentence declares that the idols are not in possession of anything. One worships a god so that it would deflect some harm from him, or bring some benefit to him. If the gods do not own any harm or benefit—even for themselves—then their service and worship would be nothing but insanity and error.
It should thus be clear that adding “themselves,” in this context, underscores the verse’s rebuke against the polytheists. The verse has an escalating tone, to this effect: These gods cannot deflect any harm from themselves and neither can they attract any benefit to themselves, let alone doing so for others [that is, their worshipers].
The verse mentions “harm” before “profit” because avoiding a loss takes precedence over making a gain.
… and they control not death nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life: The gods are not in charge of death so that they could fend it off from their worshipers or anyone else. They are not in charge of life so that they could take it away from anyone that they wish, or give it to anyone that they choose. And they are not in charge of resurrection so that they could raise the people to requite them for their actions. These powers and controls [which they lack,] are inseparable from the status of a god and lord.
Examining Narrations
- Once, Imam al-Ṣādiq was asked about “the Qur’an” and “the Furqān”: Are they two different things or are they the same thing? He said: “Qur’an” refers to the entire book, while “Furqān” refers to the muḥkam (decisive, solid, clear) parts that are obligatory to act upon.
- Part of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Salām’s discussion with the Messenger of God was that he asked, “Tell me, has God revealed any book to you?” The Prophet answered, “Yes.” He asked, “And what is that book?” The Prophet said, “The Furqān.” He asked, “Why has your Lord called it Furqān?” The Prophet replied, “Because its verses and chapters are mutafarriq (divided, separated, disjointed) and it has been revealed not in tablets, while the other books—like the scrolls (al-ṣuḥuf), the Torah, the Gospel and the Psalms—were revealed all at once in tablets and papers.” He said, “You are right, O Muḥammad.”
Author’s comment: Each of these two narrations pertains to one of the meanings of Furqān that we presented above.
See volume 11, pp. 163ff of the English translation of al-Mīzān. (Trans.) ↩︎
Therefore, furqān would mean “something which divides and separates.” (Trans.) ↩︎
If furqān is interpreted as a noun (ism), it would mean “gap, distance.” It could also be a proper noun, referring to the Qur’an. If it is interpreted as a verbal noun (maṣdar), it would mean “division, distinction.” (Trans.) ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ibn Sinān, on the authority of someone that he named. ↩︎
Mufīd’s al-Ikhtiṣāṣ. ↩︎