Verses 27–39
The previous section set forth the argument for God’s oneness and the Resurrection by adducing a number of signs that point to these realities—beginning with the verse Of His signs is that He created you… () and ending with the verse To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth… ()—and these are all divine attributes of action. Now, the context of the argument has changed to invoke these divine attributes of action and present them in four sections until the end of the verse; each section contains some of the divine attributes of action that entail God’s absolute oneness and point to the Resurrection, namely:
It is He who originates the creation, and then He will bring it back… ()
It is Allah who created you and then He provided for you… ()
He sends the winds… ()
It is Allah who created you from weakness… ()
The only reason this section of verses does not begin with the name Allah like the other sections is to match with the verse that comes immediately before it—To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth. All are submissive to Him ()—which is like a divider between the two sections.
Commentary
وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَهُوَ أَهْوَنُ عَلَيْهِ ۚ وَلَهُ الْمَثَلُ الْأَعْلَىٰ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ٢٧
(30:27) It is He who originates the creation, and then He will bring it back and that is more simple for Him. His is the loftiest description in the heavens and the earth. And He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.
To originate the creation means to produce it without any prior likeness. To bring it back means to produce it after having produced it before.
That is more simple for him means bringing it back is simpler and easier for Him than originating it.
Some might object that this implies that His power is not absolute, as all things should be the same before infinite power; one thing should be no more difficult than another. Therefore there is no sense in using the comparative more simple (ahwan) here.
One of the responses to this objection is that the pronoun in for him (ʿalayh) actually refers to the creatures (that is, “for it”) rather than God. In other words, bringing something back is easier for creatures because it has already been originated once. This makes it easier to do again. Whereas producing something completely new is naturally more difficult. Therefore, this renders the meaning: “And bringing it back is easier for the creatures.” Meaning if it is easier for creatures to bring things back, then what about the Creator bringing them back?
The problem with this reading is that making the pronoun refer to the creatures goes against the apparent meaning of the verse.
Another response is that more simple (ahwan) is being used in the sense of very simple rather than the comparative. This is like the verse: What is with Allah is better than diversion (). However, this is completely arbitrary and there is no evidence for it.
Still another response is that the act of bringing it back is simpler as an act than producing something anew, not simpler in relation to God. There is no problem comparing two of His actions, as in the verse: Surely the creation of the heavens and the earth is more prodigious than the creation of mankind… ().
This is what al-Zamakhsharī means when he says:
Were you to say: “Why is it that bringing back is extolled in the verse …and then, when He calls you… as if this is greater than making the heavens and the earth stand by His command, but then it is described as something simple after that?” I would say: “The act of bringing back in itself is amazing, but in relation to producing something anew, it is easier.”
The problem with this is that the verse qualifies the word more simple with the phrase for him. This is the best indicator that the comparison being made between origination and bringing back is in relation to God rather than between the acts themselves. Therefore, the objection stands.
Another suggestion is that the comparison is drawn with regards to the standards people use to judge actions, not to the fact of the matter. In everyday life they can see that to repeat something even once is easier than to do something the first time. So it is as if to say: “By your standards, repeating it should be easier. But origination and bringing back are the same to God.”
There is no problem with this meaning in of itself but there is nothing to suggest that this is what is meant in the text.
Still another answer is given by al-Zamakhsharī in his al-Kashshāf:
Another meaning is that origination is a voluntary act in which the agent chooses between doing and not doing. However, the act of bringing back is something that must be done because it is to recompense people for their deeds, which is obligatory. Divine actions are either impossible (muḥāl), meaning they cannot be done at all, or something the All-Wise does not do, which means they are morally repugnant (qabīḥ), which is equivalent to impossibility because God does not do them, voluntary (tafaḍḍul) in that the agent chooses whether or not to do them, or obligatory (wājib) in which case they must be performed.
Obligatory acts are those furthest from impossibility and nearest to obtaining in reality. Therefore, insofar as bringing back the creation is an obligatory act, it is the furthest from impossibility (while originating it is merely voluntary) and this has been expressed as it being “easier” for God.
The problems with this theory are, first, that it is based on some things having priority rather than being obligatory, which has been shown as false elsewhere.
Second, the idea of something being near or far from instantiation in reality is a purely mental abstraction, while ease and difficulty are real qualities with which a thing’s existence can be described in relation to the agent responsible for producing it, and a real quality does not depend on a mental abstraction.
Third, originating the creation is the same as bringing it back insofar as it is based on some purpose; if the creation did not have some purpose, it would not have come to be, as is the case with bringing it back. Therefore they are equally distant from being impossible based on the above.
Fourth, this reading implies that bringing back is easier than originating in of their own selves rather than in relation to God. In reality, this means that this devolves to the third explanation (above), which we have already dealt with.
Instead, what should be said is that the sentence That is more simple for Him is that its rationale is given by the sentence immediately after: His is the loftiest description in the heavens and the earth. And He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.
His is the loftiest description… is that every attribute of perfection represented by any being in the heavens and the earth, whether life, power, knowledge, sovereignty, generosity, kindness, greatness, majesty etc. belongs to God in an even higher and loftier form than that found in those limited beings. This is like when God says: To Allah belong the Best Names… ().
This is because every entity that possesses an attribute of perfection (ṣifat al-kamāl) in the heavens and the earth contains the opposite of this attribute in its own self. So it is something that God has bestowed on it that it does not possess inherently; all living things are dead in essence and all powerful things are impotent in essence. Therefore, whatever attribute of perfection they possess is limited and deficient; they possess it in one sense but not another, at one time but not at another. The same applies to knowledge; the knowledge of all creatures is limited and mixed with ignorance. So too is life, power, sovereignty, greatness and any other attribute.
God is the one who bestows these qualities out of His grace. But He possesses them in an absolutely pure and unlimited sense. There is no ignorance for His knowledge, no death for His life. Therefore, whatever attribute limited beings possess, He possesses it in its highest and absolute sense.
Therefore, insofar as bringing something back is classed as easy compared to producing it anew for the first time amongst His creatures, for Him it must be even easier. In fact, unlike for us, it is pure ease without difficulty. This does not imply that origination is harder for Him because difficulty is inversely proportional to the power of the agent; the weaker the agent the greater the difficulty and vice versa. Infinite power means there is no difficulty whatsoever and, therefore, no action is difficult for Him; Allah has power over all things () and power over all things means infinite power.
So, as we have said, His is the loftiest description in the heavens and the earth serves as a proof for That is more simple for Him and the short form of this proof is that every attribute of perfection possessed by any being in the heavens or the earth, whether beautiful or awe-inspiring, its highest, most absolute and undiluted form belongs to God.
And He is the All-mighty, the All-wise: This explains the rationale for His is the loftiest description… In other words, He is All-mighty because He has everything that others lack and therefore none can constrain Him, and He is All-wise because His actions are flawless. And were any of His attributes less than the highest form of what other contingent beings possess, then it would be limited, imperfect and diluted by imperfection and deficiency. This would mean that He was not the All-mighty, and this would render His actions imperfect, in which case He would not be the All-wise.
ضَرَبَ لَكُمْ مَثَلًا مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ۖ هَلْ لَكُمْ مِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ شُرَكَاءَ فِي مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ فَأَنْتُمْ فِيهِ سَوَاءٌ تَخَافُونَهُمْ كَخِيفَتِكُمْ أَنْفُسَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْقِلُونَ ٢٨
(30:28) He draws for you an example from yourselves: Do you have among your slaves (min mā malakat aymānukum) any partners (min shurakāʾ) in what We have provided you, so that you (antum) are equal in its respect, and you fear them as you fear one another? Thus do We elaborate the signs for a people who apply reason.
From yourselves means an example taken from your own circumstances. Do you…? marks the beginning of the example being given; it is a rhetorical question intended to evoke denial. The mā in min mā malakat is for category, meaning among the category of your slaves. The min in min shurakāʾ is superfluous (zāʾidah) and it is the subject of the sentence. So that you are equal in its respect follows logically from the idea of partnership. The pronoun “you” (antum) includes both masters and slaves. And you fear them as you fear one another means you fear using the property you share without their permission just as you, as free men, fear using one another’s property without the other’s permission.
God strikes this parable to demonstrate the falsity of their claim that He has partners amongst His creatures who share His divinity and lordship. This is given in the form of a rhetorical question that evokes denial: “Do you have slave men and women who share the property We gave to you while you own them and their possessions, in such a way that you fear disposing of your property without their permission just as you would fear disposing of property you share with men of your own rank?” This is, of course, impossible. No master would make his slave a partner in his wealth. Therefore how can they allow that some part of God’s creation, such as the angels or jinn, who are His servants, have a share in His domain and become gods or lords in their own right?
He ends with the refrain: Thus do We elaborate the signs for a people who apply reason. This lays the ground for what follows.
بَلِ اتَّبَعَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَهْوَاءَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۖ فَمَنْ يَهْدِي مَنْ أَضَلَّ اللَّهُ ۖ وَمَا لَهُمْ مِنْ نَاصِرِينَ ٢٩
(30:29) Rather the wrongdoers follow their own desires without any knowledge. So who will guide those whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers.
Rather turns the discourse away from the end of the previous verse, with the implication that the polytheists do not have any rational basis for their beliefs. Instead they follow their own desires without knowledge.
From the apparent sense of the text, it would have seemed fitting to say, “Rather the polytheists…” instead of Rather the wrongdoers… God has attributed them with wrongdoing as an explanation of why they are astray in the next sentence (So who will guide those whom Allah has led astray?) as it is wrongdoing that invites God to lead people astray, as we read in the verse: Allah fortifies those who have faith with an immutable word in the life of this world and in the Hereafter, and Allah leads astray the wrongdoers, and Allah does whatever He wishes ().
So who will guide those whom Allah has led astray? A rhetorical question implying that there is no hope of guidance for the polytheists who follow their own desires, despite the obviousness of the truth, and this is because of their wrongdoing which has caused them to be led astray. It is often repeated in the Qur’an: Allah does not guide the wrongdoing lot ().
They will have no helpers means they will not be saved by anyone else helping them if they have not saved themselves from error and its consequences because God has misguided them. The plural they is used to signify that their group will have no helpers, but others will, such as those who receive intercession.
Some have suggested that this means none of them will have a single helper. However, according to the common usage of language, juxtaposing one plural with another is not without exceptions.
So the verse means: “Rather those who were wrongdoers by associating partners with God followed their desires without knowledge or reason, so God led them astray because of their wrongdoing. Now there is no guide to guide them or helpers to help them.”
فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا ۚ فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا ۚ لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ٣٠
(30:30) So set your face toward the religion upright (ḥanīfan), the origination (fiṭra) of Allah according to which He originated mankind. There is no altering Allah’s creation; that is the upright religion, but most people do not know.
This verse follows logically from the conclusions drawn in the previous verse. In other words: “If it is established that all creation and governance of the cosmos are God’s alone without any partner; that He will resurrect mankind and hold them to account for their deeds, and that there is no salvation for anyone who turns away from Him for another, then set your face toward the religion and hold fast to it, for this is the religion which divine creation calls you toward.”
Some have said that this verse follows from the sense of consolation in the previous verses. Those verses showed the truth and explained that the polytheists only followed their desires because of their wrongdoing and turned away from good sense. As a result, God misguided them and did not permit any helper to help or guide them, nor for any saviour to save them from their error, whether you or anyone else. Do not worry about them. Worry about yourself and your faithful followers, and set your face and those who follow you toward the religion.
So set your face toward the religion… means to be attentive to the religion; just as when someone faces an object by focusing their gaze on it without turning left or right. The definite article in the religion suggests that this is referring to Islam.
Upright—is an adverb for the subject of the verb set, although it could also be an adverb for the religion or face. However the first is the apparent meaning and most apposite for the context. Ḥanīf comes from a root meaning to incline both of one’s feet to the middle and it conveys the sense of “uprightness” (iʿtidāl).
…the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind: Fiṭra means the way in which something was originated. The origination of Allah is accusative due to ighrāʾ (lit. “instigation”). In other words: “Hold fast to the origination of God.” This suggests that it is God-given human nature (fiṭra), in which there is no change, that guides human beings to follow this religion.
This is because religion is nothing other than a way of living and a path which a person follows to attain happiness in their life. There is no goal for a human being who follows it other than happiness. All manner of creatures have been guided to their happiness, which varies according to their innate nature, but each has been given what it needs to reach this goal. God says: Our Lord is He who gave everything its creation and then guided it (). And: …who created and proportioned, who determined and guided… ().
Therefore, the human being—like all creatures—is originated with a nature (fiṭra) that directs her to complete her deficiencies and fulfil her needs, and tells her what is to her benefit and detriment in her life. God says: …by the soul and that which fashioned it… (). In addition to this, she is endowed with all the abilities necessary to follow this nature; Then He made the way easy for him… ().
So human nature guides the human being to a specific way of living, to a particular path with a single destination that she must follow to the exclusion of all else—the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind. The human beings who dwell in this stage of existence all belong to a single species; there is no difference in what harms and benefits them with regards to this form of existence composed of a spirit and a body. Therefore, happiness is one and the same for all human beings qua human beings, and misery is one and the same too. Therefore, the general principles on which human beings base their actions must be one and the same and the guide that leads them towards these, one and the same too.
This guide is none other than human nature, which is why God follows the words the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind with the refrain: There is no altering Allah’s creation.
If human happiness differed from one person to another, it would be impossible for a single society to exist that was capable of guaranteeing the happiness of its members. On the other hand, if it differed from one region to another, meaning that this is the sole basis for social living, then religion would be based on the whatever was the case in that region and the human being would not be a single species but many—one species for each region. Then, if it differed from one time to another, such that the epoch was the sole basis of social life, then each generation would be a different species to the one before it. In this case there would be no progress in human society; humanity would not move from deficiency towards perfection, as this is only possible if there is a single frame of reference.
This is not to say that differences between individuals, places and times don’t have any influence on people’s ways of living. All this means is that humanity, which is the foundation of the religious way of life, is a single stable reality shared between all human beings. Therefore, the correct way for human beings to live is also a single, stable way of life, based on the stability of its foundations—namely the human being. It is around this axis that the wheel of humanity turns, as well as the ways of living that are particular to different individuals, times and places.
It is to this that God alludes when He says: …that is the upright religion, but most people do not know. We shall discuss this further in a dedicated treatise, God-willing.
There are a number of different opinions about the phrases found in this verse and their meaning. For instance, some say that “to set your face” means to act in the right way, as the face represents what a person pays attention to (namely his action) and “to set” it means to do it right.
However, the “face” (wajh) of action (ʿamal) is its goal and this is not the action itself. Also, the verse says Set your face… not “Set the face of your action…”
Another is that the origination of Allah is accusative with the meaning of “I mean…” and the meaning of fiṭra is “creed” (milla). This makes the meaning: “Remain upright for the religion, meaning the creed upon which God created mankind. There is no change to God’s creation.”
However, this depends on a different understanding of fiṭra as “creed.” But when God says faṭara al-nās, this is taken to mean creation or composition, and this contradicts the apparent meaning of the verse. On the other hand, if faṭara al-nās was understood in the sense of “the religion given to mankind by God” (meaning Divine Unity or tawḥīd), the phrase there is no altering Allah’s creation would not fit with this.
Still another contradiction is interpreting “religion” (dīn) to mean Divine Unity. But, if it was interpreted to mean Islam or religion in general and fiṭra was left with its original meaning (creation), then you could not say that the origination of Allah is accusative with the meaning of “I mean…,” as religion in this sense is not the same as fiṭra in the sense of creation.
Another reading is that fiṭra is a permutation (badal) of upright (ḥanīf) and its meaning is “creed” (milla). This has the same problems as we mentioned above.
Still another reading is that fiṭra is an absolute object (mafʿūl muṭlaq) for an implicit verb, with the meaning: “God originated an origination upon which He originated mankind…”—the invalidity of such a reading should not need explaining.
Another reading is that it means: “Follow the religion that your God-given fiṭra leads you to, namely that which the origin of all things leads you to because He created them, combined them and shaped them in such a way that points to the existence of a single, eternal All-powerful, All-knowing, All-living Creator who resembles nothing and whom nothing resembles.
However this depends on fiṭra being accusative with the meaning of “follow the origination of Allah…” This has been mentioned by Abū al-Sʿūd and Abū Muslim al-Mufassir before him. In this case, “following” the fiṭra means following the innate created nature. The absence of any alteration in God’s creation means that it never stops pointing towards a Creator with certain attributes. This is very close to the meaning we presented for the verse when we said that fiṭra was accusative due to ighrāʾ. However, this reading runs into the problem that the verse has a general meaning and there is nothing to suggest that its meaning is particular to belief in Divine Unity.
Another reading is that the “negation” (lā) in There is no altering Allah’s creation indicates prohibition. In other words: “Do not alter God’s creation.” Meaning do not alter His religion which He has ordered you to follow, or do not alter His creation by denying that it points to His unity. Part of this is the opinion attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās that this prohibits castration.
However, there is nothing to suggest that creation (khalq) is being used in the sense of religion, nor is there any reason to call rejecting the implications of creation alteration (tabdīl). As for what has been attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās, this is obviously invalid.
Another reading is mentioned by Fakhr al-Rāzī in Tafsīr al-Kabīr:
It could be said that God created the creation to worship Him and they are all His servants. There is no altering Allah’s creation means that their servanthood in relation to God is not like that of a slave in relation to a human master; the latter can be given to another master or be freed from slavery, whereas there is no escape from worshiping and serving God. This exposes as false the claim that worship is to attain perfection and the servant becomes perfect through worship and then there is no moral duty (taklīf) upon him; and the claim of the idolaters that one who is imperfect cannot approach God, rather the human beings are servants of the stars and the stars are God’s servants; and the claim of the Christians that God dwelt in Jesus and Jesus became God. So he said: There is no altering Allah’s creation—rather all of them are God’s servants now and forever.
However, this draws a false analogy between cosmic sovereignty and servanthood and moral sovereignty and servanthood; God’s sovereignty cannot be transferred to another or invalidated because the existence of all things is only through Him. And the worship all things offered to Him is cosmic worship, meaning that their essences are humbled before Him and not subject to change or removal. This is as God says in the verse: There is not a thing but celebrates His praise, but you do not understand their glorification (). As for religious worship which can be altered or removed, this is moral worship and servanthood. So keep this in mind.
If the phrase There is no altering Allah’s creation indicates that there is no change to sovereignty, worship and servanthood in relation to God, this would refer to the cosmic variety of these, while the opinions Rāzī presents in his commentary relate to the moral variety.
مُنِيبِينَ إِلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُوهُ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ ٣١
(30:31) turning to Him in penitence, and be wary of Him, and maintain the prayer, and do not be among the polytheists,
Here the pronouns are plural, signifying a shift in address from the Prophet to the audience as a whole. This is like the verses:
O Prophet! When you [pl.] divorce women… ()
So be steadfast, just as you [sing.] have been commanded, and whoever has turned [to Allah] with you [sing.], and do not overstep [pl.] the bounds. ()
With this in mind, the meaning of the previous verse becomes: “So set your face upon the religion upright, you and those with you, turning to Him in penitence…”
…and be wary of Him, and maintain the prayer…: Based on the context, to be wary of God here includes obeying His commands and observing His prohibitions; prayer is singled out for particular mention because of its importance as a pillar of the religion.
…and do not be among the polytheists: Again, polytheism is singled out amongst all prohibited things for the same reason that prayer is singled out amongst all acts of worship, as associating partners with God is one of the most severe sins; Indeed Allah does not forgive that any partner should be ascribed to Him, but He forgives anything besides that to whomever He wishes… ()
مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا ۖ كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ ٣٢
(30:32) of those who split up their religion and became sects: each faction exulting in what it possessed.
Here, “of” (min) is for exposition and of those who split up their religion explains the nature of the polytheists, defining them by the most specific feature of their religion, namely that they are divided in their religion into different grounds and sects, with each one exulting in their own religion. The reason for this is what God has said above: Rather the wrongdoers follow their own desires without any knowledge. So who will guide those whom Allah has led astray? They will have no helpers (). This shows that they founded their religion on their own desires; therefore, it will not guide them and nor will anyone else.
It is well known that the soul’s low desires vary from one person to another, from one moment to another and from one state to another. If these desires are the basis of religion, then it will constantly be changing according to people’s whims and desires. In this case there is no difference between true religion or false religion when these are built on desires.
From this, therefore, it is clear that the prohibition on splitting up the religion is really a prohibition on basing one’s religion on desires rather than intellect.
It is possible that this verse is detached from the one before it and represents a separate statement, but this does not match the context.
This verse also rebukes the polytheists for their division and partisanship in the matter of religion.
وَإِذَا مَسَّ النَّاسَ ضُرٌّ دَعَوْا رَبَّهُمْ مُنِيبِينَ إِلَيْهِ ثُمَّ إِذَا أَذَاقَهُمْ مِنْهُ رَحْمَةً إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ بِرَبِّهِمْ يُشْرِكُونَ ٣٣
(30:33) When distress touches people, they supplicate their Lord, turning to Him in penitence. Then, when He lets them taste His mercy, behold, a part of them ascribe partners to their Lord.
The word “touches” (mass) is used to imply the lightness of the distress; “distress” and “mercy” are indefinite for the same reason. This renders the meaning of the verse: “When some distress afflicts people, even a little bit such as illness, hardship or poverty, they will call on their Lord, God, even though they will return to others. And when He lets them taste mercy from Him, there are a group of those people who called on their Lord and acknowledged His lordship who now associate partners with Him. In other words, they are ungrateful for His blessings by their actions, even if they acknowledge them when they are in hardship. God says a part of them because some of them are not like that.”
لِيَكْفُرُوا بِمَا آتَيْنَاهُمْ ۚ فَتَمَتَّعُوا فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ ٣٤
(30:34) Let them be ungrateful (li yakfurū) toward what We have given them. So enjoy! Soon they will know!
This is a warning to those polytheists when God lets them taste mercy. The lām in li yakfurū is for the imperative. So enjoy! follows on from this and it is another imperative. Both imperatives are meant as a threat, and there is a transition from a third-person command to a second-person command to convey God’s anger at their negligence and disregard of His command; they only call on Him in times of difficulty and become ungrateful in times of ease.
أَمْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانًا فَهُوَ يَتَكَلَّمُ بِمَا كَانُوا بِهِ يُشْرِكُونَ ٣٥
(30:35) Or have We sent down to them any authority which might speak of what they associate with Him?
Or is truncated (munqatiʿ), marking the beginning of a new discussion. “Sending down” is a figurative way of saying “inform.” Authority (sulṭān) means evidence. “Speak” is a figurative way of saying “prove.” The meaning of the verse is: “Or have we informed them of some evidence which proves what they associate with God?”
Alternatively, “authority” could mean “a possessor of authority” in the sense of a sovereign, in which case “sending down” and “speak” are not figurative. The verse would then mean: “Rather have We sent down a sovereign who speaks of what they associate?”
وَإِذَا أَذَقْنَا النَّاسَ رَحْمَةً فَرِحُوا بِهَا ۖ وَإِنْ تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ بِمَا قَدَّمَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ إِذَا هُمْ يَقْنَطُونَ ٣٦
(30:36) And when (idhā) We let people taste mercy, they exult in it; but should [in] an ill visit them because of what their hands have sent ahead, behold (idhā), they become despondent!
“Taste” (idhāqa) like “touch” suggests the slightest amount.
The first idhā is conditional, the second is for astonishment. The contrast between the use of idhā in tasting mercy and should an ill visit them is to show that God’s mercy is abundant and certain, while ill is scarce and merely possible. Mercy is also attributed to God but not ill because mercy is something real (wujūdī) that overflows from Him while ill is something privative (ʿadamī), namely the absence of something overflowing from Him. That is why God gives because of what their hands have sent ahead as the reason for this ill, but gives no reason for His mercy to show that His mercy is pure grace (tafaḍḍul) and needs no reason.
Moreover, God says that people “exult” (fariḥū) in mercy while they become despondent (idhā hum yaqnaṭūn) to show that this is an unexpected occurrence, for both mercy and ill are in God’s hands but mercy is more abundant. This is why He has used the present tense for the latter to show that it is transient.
What this verse is saying is that people do not look beyond the appearance of comfort and hardship; when they find what they want they become happy without considering that this is in God’s hands and dependent upon His will; and when they do not find what they want, they become despondent as if this was not also God’s will. Therefore they are people of appearances who exist on the surface of things.
This shows that there is no contradiction between this verse and the above one: When distress touches people, they supplicate their Lord, turning to Him in penitence (). This is because the meaning of this verse is that their understanding is very shallow; when they find what they want they are happy and when they do not they are despondent; while the meaning of the other verse is that if they find what they want they are happy and if they do not, they call on God despondent and turning to Him in penitence. So there is no contradiction.
To avoid the apparent contradiction, some might interpret the “people” in this verse to refer to a different group to the “people” mentioned in the one above or, assuming they are actually one and the same, interpret the verses as referring to two different states they find themselves in.
Another suggestion to resolve the apparent conflict is that supplication (duʿāʾ) is something uttered while despondence is something felt in the heart. However, the flaws in both of these interpretations should be obvious.
Yet another interpretation is that their becoming despondent means that they act in this way by hoarding possessions when they are wealthy. However, as well as there not being any evidence for this reading in the verse, this also doesn’t match the surprise being expressed at this despondency.
أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ ٣٧
(30:37) Do they not see that Allah expands the provision for whomever He wishes, and tightens it? There are indeed signs in that for a people who have faith.
This shows why they are in error for being so quick to exult or despair, as the expansion and contraction of provision (rizq) depends entirely on God’s will. Therefore, a person should know that whatever mercy they taste or ill they suffer, it could be removed by God; there is no point in exulting in something that could be lost or despairing over something that might be alleviated.
And even though a person’s provision might appear as something visible and certain, this provision that a person obtains or earns actually depends upon millions of factors of which the person himself is only one, and whatever it is that reassures him of his provision is actually only one of these factors too. And all of them ultimately devolve to God, for it is He who gives and withholds and He who expands and contracts a person’s provision. The rest of the verse is clear.
فَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ وَالْمِسْكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ لِلَّذِينَ يُرِيدُونَ وَجْهَ اللَّهِ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ ٣٨
(30:38) Give the relative his right, and the needy and the traveller. That is better for those who seek Allah’s pleasure, and it is they who are the felicitous.
A relative (dhū al-qurbā) is someone related by blood. A needy person (miskīn) is in a worse state than a poor one (faqīr). The traveller (ibn al-sabīl) is a needy wayfarer. God says “his right” (haqquhu) to show that a relative has an inalienable right. The verse is addressed to the Prophet, so the apparent meaning of the verse—based on the context in which it occurs—is that it is speaking about khums and the moral duty it legislates is first for the Prophet and then for whoever is responsible for khums after him. In any case, the relative here means the relatives of the Prophet, as indicated in the verse of khums. This is all assuming that the verse is Medinan in providence. However, if it is Meccan like the other verses of this sūrah, then the verse concerns generosity to relatives, the needy and travellers in a general sense.
And because of the generality of the verse, the beautiful effects of it are also generalized: That is better for those who seek Allah’s pleasure, and it is they who are the felicitous.
وَمَا آتَيْتُمْ مِنْ رِبًا لِيَرْبُوَ فِي أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ فَلَا يَرْبُو عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ۖ وَمَا آتَيْتُمْ مِنْ زَكَاةٍ تُرِيدُونَ وَجْهَ اللَّهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُضْعِفُونَ ٣٩
(30:39) That which you give in ribāʾ in order that it may increase (li yarbū) people’s wealth does not increase with Allah. But what you pay as zakāt seeking Allah’s pleasure it is they who will be given a manifold increase.
The word ribāʾ literally means for wealth to grow, and God says li yarbū to illustrate why it has been given this name. This means that the wealth that you give to people so that they may increase their wealth, rather than for the sake of God (based on the juxtaposition of …seeking Allah’s pleasure…) does not increase or grow with God. In other words, you will not be rewarded for it because you have not done it for God.
But what you pay as zakāt seeking Allah’s pleasure it is they who will be given a manifold increase: Here, zakāt means any kind of charity, in other words: Giving wealth for the sake of God without squandering it. “A manifold increase” means to be doubled. So the general sense of the verse is: “Whatever you give of your wealth as charity seeking God’s pleasure, they are those whose wealth or reward will be doubled.”
Based on the juxtaposition of the two terms and the context in which they occur, ribāʾ and zakāt refer to permitted ribāʾ (a gift given without the intention of seeking God’s pleasure), while charity is giving one’s wealth seeking God’s pleasure. This is all assuming that the verse is Meccan. However, if it is Medinan then the meaning of ribāʾ is forbidden usury and the meaning of zakāt is the obligatory zakāt.
This verse and the one before it bear a closer resemblance to Medinan verses rather than Meccan ones, and there is no validity for what is claimed on the basis of narrations or consensus about their provenance.
Examining Narrations
- God’s Messenger stood up to deliver a sermon, and at the end of his sermon, he said: We are the word of godwariness (kalimat al-taqwā), the way of guidance (sabīl al-hudā), the loftiest description (al-muthul al-aʿlā), the greatest proof (al-ḥujjat al-ʿuẓmā) and the firmest handhold (al-ʿurwat al-wuthqā)…
- Tafsīr al-Qummī says that the occasion of revelation for the verse He draws for you an example from yourselves () was that the Quraysh used to perform Hajj in the way of Abraham, proclaiming his slogan (talbiyya): “We come, O God! We come! We come! You have no partner! We come! Praise, blessings and sovereignty belong to you! You have no partner!”
Then Iblīs came in the form of an old man and altered their slogan to his words: “We come! O God! You have no partner except your partner! His sovereignty is yours!” The Quraysh recited this slogan until God’s Messenger was sent and rebuked them, saying: “This is polytheism!”
So God sent down the verse: He draws for you an example from yourselves: Do you have among your slaves any partners in what We have provided you, so that you are equal in its respect… meaning would you share your property with a partner? So how can you make a partner for one whose claim is even greater than yours?
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said about the verse, So set your face toward the religion upright (): This is wilāyah.
- Hishām b. Sālim says: I asked Imam al-Ṣādiq about the phrase the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind. He said: “Divine Unity.”
- Imam al-Bāqir said: The code (sharīʿa) of Noah was to worship God with divine unity, dedication and without idolatry. This is the origination upon which mankind was originated.
- Imam al-Bāqir said concerning the verse: the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind: It is “There is no god but God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, ʿAlī, the Commander of the Faithful, is God’s ally (walī).” Until here is Divine Unity.
Author’s comment: The fiṭra equating to the three testimonies of faith means that the human being is naturally inclined to acknowledge that God has no partner because of his need that leads him to reflect upon the things upon which he depends and beyond that, ultimately leading him to believe in divine unity; meanwhile, his innate deficiency means he is aware of his need for a religion that will complete him, leading him to believe in prophethood; and perhaps he feels that he needs to be under God’s direct authority when arranging his life in accordance with religion; this is successorship (wilāya) and the one who opened the door of wilāya in Islam is ʿAlī This is the meaning of the tradition and not that every human being who has ever existed naturally believed in these three testimonies of faith.
This also how we must understand the above narration that said this verse refers to wilāya, as this also entails divine unity and prophethood. The same is true of those traditions which said fiṭra referred to divine unity, as divine unity is to proclaim the oneness of God along with His attributes of perfection, which necessarily entail belief in resurrection, prophethood and wilāya. Therefore the root of all these explanations of this verse are one and the same.
- Zurārah said: I asked Imam al-Bāqir about the verse the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind and he said: He originated them upon the knowledge that He is their Lord. Were it not for this, then none of them would have known who was their Lord and provider.
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said: God created people, all of them, upon the origination upon which He originated them. They did not know faith in a religion or disbelief through obstinacy. Then God sent messengers who summoned His servants to believe in Him and amongst them were those whom God guided and amongst them were those whom He did not guide.
Author’s comment: There are other narrations with a similar meaning that relate to the verse Mankind were but a single community (). The meaning of these narrations is that the original human (al-insān al-fiṭrī) was a simple being who lived according to his innate nature, uncorrupted by errors in thinking or selfish desires. He was, in this potential state, very close to realizing the basics of true beliefs and the general precepts of the divine codes as he lived and moved according to his innate human nature. However, as for being guided to the specifics of true beliefs and the detailed prescriptions of the divine codes, this required special guidance from God in the form of sending prophets.
- God’s Messenger said: The origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind. That is God’s religion.
- Abū Hurayrah said: God’s Messenger said: “No child is born save upon fiṭra. It is her parents who make her a Jew, a Christian or a Magian—just as an animal gives birth to a complete offspring, do you see them give birth to one without limbs?” Abū Hurayrah added: “Read, if you will, the verse the origination of Allah according to which He originated mankind.”
- In another version the Prophet said: “Every child is born upon fiṭra. It is her parents that make her a Jew or a Christian. Just as a camel gives birth to complete offspring. Do you see one born without limbs?”
- God’s Messenger said: “Every child is born upon fiṭra.” Meaning with the knowledge that God is her creator…
- God’s Messenger said: Do not strike your children when they cry, for their cries for the first four months are the testimony: There is no Allah but Allah. For the next four months they are invoking blessings upon the Prophet. And for the next four months they are praying for their parents.
Author’s comment: This is a very subtle narration. It means that for the first four months the child knows no one, she only senses her need and seeks to fulfil it by crying. The one who fulfils it is God; He looks after her and she bears witness to His oneness.
In the next four months, she knows that her parents are intermediaries between her and the one who looks after he needs, without knowing them personally. And an intermediary between her and her Lord can only be the Prophet, so her crying then is asking for mercy for the Prophet so that it might reach her through him.
Finally, in the next four months, she can recognize her parents personally, so then her crying becomes a supplication for them and asking for mercy to flow to her through them from God. This tradition contains the subtlest references to how mercy flows forth from God to His creation through intermediaries. So reflect on this.
- Concerning the verse, Give the relative his right () it is narrated that when this verse was revealed to the Prophet he gave Fāṭima Fadak.
- Imam al-Ṣādiq said: There are two kinds of ribāʾ, one which is eaten and one which is not. The one which is eaten is a gift you give to someone seeking a reward better than it. This is the ribāʾ which is eaten and it is God’s saying: That which you give in ribāʾ in order that it may increase people’s wealth does not increase with Allah (). As for the ribāʾ which is not eaten, it is that which God has forbidden and threatened the punishment of Hellfire as a recompense for it.
- Concerning the verse, it is they who will be given a manifold increase, Imam ʿAlī said: God enjoined prayer to remove pride, zakāt to bring provision, fasting as a trial to purify one’s character, and maintaining kinship ties to increase the number of people.
- Part of Lady Fāṭimah’s sermon was: God enjoined faith to purify people of polytheism, prayer to free them from pride and zakāt to increase their provision.
Discourse
The discussion “In What Way is Religion Innate?” appears here in the printed volume. Read it in the Al-Mizan App.
Al-ʿUyūn, on the authority of ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿAbbās. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Abū Baṣīr. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration. Al-Kāfī has also narrated this from the Imam, on the authorities of al-Ḥalabī and Zurārah. Al-Ṣadūq has also reported a similar narration from the Imam in al-Tawḥīd, on the authorities of al-ʿAlāʾ b. Fuḍayl, Zurārah and Bukayr. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ismāʿīl al-Juʿfī. ↩︎
Tafsīr al-Qummī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of al-Haytham al-Rummānī, from Imam al-Riḍā, from his father, from his grandfather. Words to this effect have also been narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq in Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, and from Imam al-Bāqir in al-Tawḥīd, on the authority of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, the bondsman of the Imam. ↩︎
Al-Maḥāsin. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī via its chain of narrators, on the authority of al-Ḥusayn b. Nuʿaym al-Saḥḥāf. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-Manthūr, on the authority of Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ḥammād b. ʿAmr al-Ṣaffār, on the authority of Qatādah, on the authority of Anas b. Mālik. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-Manthūr, on the authority of al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and Ibn Mardawayh. ↩︎
Al-Durr al-Manthūr, on the authority of Mālik, Abū Dāwud and Ibn Mardawayh on the authority of Abū Hurayrah. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Zurārah, from Imam al-Bāqir. ↩︎
Al-Tawḥīd, via its chain of narration, on the authority of ʿUmar. ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-Bayān, from and Imams al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and others. ↩︎
Al-Kāfī, via its chain of narration, on the authority of Ibrāhīm al-Yamānī. This is also narrated from the Imam al-Tahdhīb, on the authority of Ibrāhīm b. ʿUmar; and in Tafsīr al-Qummī, on the authority of Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth. It is also narrated from from Imam al-Bāqir in Majmaʿ al-Bayān, via an incomplete chain of narration (mursal). ↩︎
Majmaʿ al-Bayān. ↩︎
Man lā yaḥḍuruhu al-faqīh. ↩︎