Tafsir of Al-Ikhlas 112:1

Introduction

It is named as such due to the tawhid (monotheism) it contains. For this reason, it is also called al-Asas (The Foundation), being the basis for all other foundations of the religion. From Ka’b, as stated by al-Jahiz and Ibn Rajab: "The seven heavens and the seven earths were founded upon this surah, 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One'." Al-Zamakhshari narrated it from Ubayy and Anas as a marfu’ (elevated) hadith, though no reputable hadith scholar has mentioned it as such. Regardless, if we consider its meaning, it implies perfection. It is said: "The heavens and the earths were not created except to be signs for the tawhid of Allah the Exalted and for the knowledge of His attributes which this surah encompasses."

It is also said that the meaning of its being the foundation is that they were created in Truth, as the Almighty said: "And We did not create the heavens and the earth and that which is between them in play. We did not create them except in truth," and "Truth" is justice and tawhid.

It is also said that the meaning is that the rectifier of their creation—after their ontological contingency—is what the surah points to regarding the Oneness of the Almighty and the impossibility of Him having a partner, for were it not for that, their existence would not be possible due to the possibility of tamānu’ (mutual hindrance), as established by some scholars in proving the validity of the Almighty's saying: "If there were within them [i.e., the heavens and the earth] gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined." This, however, is a far-fetched interpretation.

It is also called:

• Surah Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad, as is famous, which is also indicated by reports.
• Al-Muqashqishah (The Clearer/Healer), for reasons mentioned in the interpretation of Surah al-Kafirun.
• Surah al-Tawhid (The Surah of Monotheism).
• Surah al-Tafrid (The Surah of Singularity).
• Surah al-Tajrid (The Surah of Abstraction/Purification).
• Surah al-Najah (The Surah of Salvation).
• Surah al-Wilayah (The Surah of Sainthood/Allegiance).
• Surah al-Ma’rifah (The Surah of Knowledge), because the knowledge of Allah the Exalted is only completed by knowing what is in this surah. In a report, a man prayed and recited it, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "This is a servant who has known his Lord."
• Surah al-Jamal (The Surah of Beauty). It is said this is because it is narrated that he (peace be upon him) said: "Allah is Beautiful and He loves beauty." When they asked him about that, he replied: "[He is] One, the Eternal Refuge, He neither begets nor is born." I do not believe this report is authentic.
• Surah al-Nisbah (The Surah of Lineage), because it was revealed as an answer to those who said: "Trace for us the lineage of your Lord," as you will hear, God willing. It is also said it is because of what al-Tabarani extracted via Uthman ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Tara’ifi from al-Wazi’ ibn Nafi’ from Abu Salamah from Abu Hurairah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Everything has a lineage, and the lineage of Allah the Exalted is 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge'." This, as al-Jahiz and Ibn Rajab said, is very weak, and Uthman narrates munkar (rejected) reports. In al-Mizan, it is stated that it is a fabrication.
• Surah al-Samad (The Surah of the Eternal Refuge).
• Surah al-Mu’awwidha, for what al-Nasa’i, al-Bazzar, and Ibn Marduyah extracted with a sound chain from Abdullah ibn Anis, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) placed his hand on my chest and said: "Say." I asked: "What should I say?" He said: "Say, He is Allah, [who is] One." I recited until I finished. Then he said: "Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak." I recited until I finished. Then he said: "Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind." I recited until I finished. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Seek refuge like this, for those who seek refuge have never sought refuge with anything like them."
• Surah al-Mani’ah (The Preventive Surah). It is said this is because Ibn Abbas narrated that the Almighty said to His Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was ascended: "I have given you Surah al-Ikhlas; it is from the treasures of My Throne. It is the preventive one; it prevents the distresses of the grave and the gusts of the Fire." The apparent reality is that this report is not authentic, and it is contradicted by what Ibn al-Durays extracted from Abu Umamah: "Four verses were sent down from the treasure of the Throne, and none other than them were sent down from it: the Mother of the Book (al-Fatiha), the Verse of the Throne (Ayat al-Kursi), the conclusion of Surah al-Baqarah, and al-Kawthar." Its ruling is that of a marfu’ report; indeed, Sheikh Ibn Hibban and al-Daylami and others extracted it with a chain from Abu Umamah as marfu’.
• Surah al-Mahdar (The Surah that is Attended), it is said because the angels attend to listen to it when it is recited.
• Surah al-Munaffirah (The Repellent Surah), it is said because the Shaytan flees upon its recitation.
• Surah al-Bara’ah (The Surah of Immunity). It is said because it was narrated that he (peace be upon him) saw a man reciting it and said: "As for this one, he has been granted immunity from shirk." I do not know who narrated this. Yes, Abu Nu’aym narrated via ‘Amr ibn Marzuq from Shu’bah from Muhajir, who said: I heard a man say: "I accompanied the Prophet (peace be upon him) on a journey, and he heard a man reciting 'Say, O disbelievers.' He said: 'He has been granted immunity from shirk.' And he heard another reciting 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One,' and said: 'He has been forgiven'." Based on this, Surah al-Kafirun may be attached to this name. Perhaps it is better to say it was named that due to the hadith in al-Tirmidhi from Anas: "Whoever wants to sleep on his bed and lies on his right side, then recites 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One' one hundred times, Allah the Exalted will write for him an immunity from the Fire."
• Surah al-Mudhakkirah (The Reminding Surah), because it reminds one of pure tawhid.
• Surah al-Nur (The Surah of Light). It is said because of his (peace be upon him) saying: "Everything has a light, and the light of the Quran is 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One'."
• Surah al-Iman (The Surah of Faith), because it is not complete without what it contains of tawhid.

Most of these things were mentioned by Imam al-Razi, and he clarified the reasons for these names. The man, may Allah have mercy on him, is not an Imam in knowing the conditions of narrations; he does not distinguish the rotten from the good, or perhaps he does not care about that, so he writes whatever he finds, even if he knows its severe weakness.

It is Makki according to Abdullah, al-Hasan, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata’, Mujahid, and Qatadah. It is Madani according to Ibn Abbas, Muhammad ibn Ka’b, Abu al-‘Aliyah, and al-Dahhak. This was stated in al-Bahr. The previous report of Ibn Abbas, if authentic, makes it apparent that it is Makki in his view. In al-Itqan, there are two sayings about it due to two contradictory hadiths regarding the reason for its revelation. Some reconciled them by suggesting it was revealed twice. Then it became clear to me that the stronger view is that it is Madani. According to what is in both books, it is not hidden that the statement of al-Dawani that it is Makki by consensus indicates a lack of research.

Its verses are five in the Makki and Shami [traditions], and four in others. It was placed here, it is said, to balance the wordings between its endings and the conclusion of Surah al-Masad. It is said—and this is better—that it is connected to "Say, O disbelievers" in meaning, as they are like the statement of tawhid (La ilaha illa Allah) in both negation and affirmation. For this reason, they are called the two Muqashqishatayn. They are coupled together in prayer in many instances, as some Imams have said, such as the two rak’ahs of dawn, [the circumambulation of] the Ka'bah, the Duha prayer, the Sunnah of the Maghrib, the dawn [prayer] of the traveler, and the Maghrib on the eve of Friday. However, they are separated by two surahs for the reason mentioned previously. Including Surah Tabat (al-Masad) was a refutation of Abu Lahab specifically.

Many reports came indicating its increased merit, among them what was mentioned previously. Mubarak ibn Fadalah narrated from Anas that a man said: "O Messenger of Allah, I love this surah ('Say, He is Allah, [who is] One')." He said: "Your love for it will enter you into Paradise." Imam Ahmad extracted it in the Musnad from Abu al-Nadr from the aforementioned Mubarak from Anas. Al-Bukhari mentioned that loving it necessitates entry into Paradise as a ta’liq (hanging chain) narration.

Malik narrated from Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman that he heard Abu Hurairah say: "I approached with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he heard a man reciting 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One.' The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'It has become obligatory.' I asked: 'What has become obligatory?' He said: 'Paradise'." Al-Nasa’i and al-Tirmidhi extracted it, and the latter said: "A sound hadith, we do not know it except from the hadith of Malik."

Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi extracted—and the latter called it hasan gharib—from Buraydah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) heard a man saying: "O Allah, I ask You by the fact that I bear witness that You are Allah, there is no god but You, the One, the Eternal Refuge, who neither begets nor is born, and to whom there is no equal." The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, he has asked Allah by His Greatest Name, which, if He is called by it, He answers, and if He is asked by it, He gives."

In the Musnad, from Mahjan ibn al-Adra’, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) entered the mosque and found a man who had finished his prayer and was reciting the tashahhud, saying: "I ask You, O Allah, the One, the Eternal Refuge, who neither begets nor is born, and to whom there is no equal, to forgive me my sins; You are the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful." The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said three times: "He has been forgiven, he has been forgiven, he has been forgiven."

Al-Bukhari, Malik, Abu Dawud, and al-Nasa’i extracted from Abu Sa’id that a man heard a man reciting "Say, He is Allah, [who is] One," repeating it. In the morning, he came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and mentioned that to him, as the man seemed to downplay it. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, it is equal to a third of the Quran." Ahmad and al-Nasa’i in al-Yawm wa al-Laylah extracted via Hushaym from Ubayy ibn Ka’b or a man from the Ansar that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever recites 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One,' it is as if he has recited a third of the Quran." In the narration of Yusuf ibn ‘Atiyyah al-Saffar with his chain from his father marfu’: "Whoever recites 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One,' it is as if he recited a third of the Quran, and he is written for him in good deeds as many as those who associated partners with Allah the Exalted and believed in Him."

It is mentioned that it is equal to a third of the Quran in several marfu’ and mawquf (stopped) reports. In the Musnad, via Ibn Lahi’ah from al-Harith ibn Yazid from Abu al-Haytham from Abu Sa’id: Qatadah ibn al-Nu’man spent the night reciting "Say, He is Allah, [who is] One" the whole night. This was mentioned to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he said: "By Him in whose hand is my soul, it is equal to half the Quran or a third of it." This is attributed to doubt on the part of the narrator, and the [other] narrations confirm [it is] a third.

There is disagreement regarding what is meant by this. It is said that it means, in consideration of its meaning, it is a third of the Quran divided into three parts, not that the reward for reciting it is a third of the reward of the [entire] Quran. A group went to this view, though they differed in explaining it. It is said that the Quran contains stories, rulings, and creeds, and this [surah] is entirely related to creeds, so it is a third by that consideration. Al-Ghazali said in al-Jawahir—the summary of which is: "It is the equivalent of a third of it, considering the three types of knowledge which are the essence of the Quran: the knowledge of the Origin, the knowledge of the Return, and the knowledge of what is between them, i.e., the knowledge of the Straight Path." Al-Jawni said: "The objectives in the Quran, most of them, are the three foundations by which Islam is sound and faith is obtained: knowledge of Allah the Exalted, recognition of the truthfulness of His Messenger (peace be upon him), and belief in standing before Him. This surah yields the first foundation, so it is a third of it in this respect." It is also said: "The Quran is two parts: information and initiation. Information is two parts: information about the Creator and information about the created. These are three thirds, and Surah al-Ikhlas has purified the information about the Creator, so it is a third in this respect."

As you can see, this is the case. Regardless, it is said there is no contradiction between the narration of the "third" and the narration of it being "equal to the entire Quran" mentioned in al-Kashshaf—assuming it is established—because it is permissible to say it is equal to the Quran by virtue of the fact that the goal is tawhid and whatever is used as a means to it. Supporting the consideration of the parts themselves, rather than the reward, is what is in Sahih Muslim via Qatadah from Abu al-Darda’ that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Does one of you feel incapable of reciting a third of the Quran every day?" They said: "Yes." He said: "For Allah has divided the Quran into three parts: 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One' is a third of the Quran."

It is said that the meaning is that it equals a third in reward, according to the outward meanings of the hadiths. Ibn ‘Aqil weakened this, saying: "It is not permissible for the meaning to be that he has the reward of a third of the Quran, because of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) saying: 'Whoever recites the Quran, for him is ten good deeds for every letter.' Thus, the reward for reciting the Quran in full would be many times greater than the reward for reciting this surah." Al-Dawani raised this as a difficulty for this view, then answered: "The reciter has two rewards: a detailed one based on the recitation of letters, and a general one based on completing the Quran. The reward of 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One' is equal to a third of the general completion reward, and nothing else." This is like someone who is appointed to build a house for a certain amount of dinars each day, and is appointed another prize if he finishes it, separate from his daily wages.

In Sharh al-Bukhari by al-Kirmani: "If you say, 'The difficulty in reciting a third is greater than in reciting this [surah], so how can its ruling be the same as its ruling?' I say: The reward of reciting a third is ten-fold, and the reward of this is equal to the reward of one time of it, because the comparison is to the essence, not the addition, and nine of them are in exchange for the increase in difficulty."

Al-Khafaji said, after stating that there is nothing in what was mentioned that cools the heart or settles the mind: "What I have in this regard is that looking into the meaning of the speech of Allah the Exalted by one who reflects on His verses has a reward, and the one who recites it without understanding it has another reward. The meaning is that whoever recites it while observing the rights of its performance, understanding the subtleties of its meanings, his recitation of it—with his reflection and pondering—would equal the reward of reciting a third of the Quran without looking into its meanings, or a third that does not contain what relates to the knowledge of Allah and His tawhid. It is not strange for the most honorable meaning, when joined to some of the most honorable expressions, to equal a large amount of the genre of those expressions—like a gold plate weighing ten mithqals encrusted with the most precious gems equalling a thousand mithqals of gold or more."

I do not see much distinction for this over others that were mentioned. What I choose is to say: There is no obstacle to Allah the Almighty specifying some acts of worship that do not contain much difficulty with a reward greater than the reward of what is of its genre and more difficult by many times over. He, the Exalted, is the One who has no restraint, and His generosity and kindness are infinite. It is not far-fetched for Him, the Almighty, to bestow upon the reciter of the Quran ten good deeds for every letter, and increase upon that by many times over for the reciter of al-Ikhlas, such that its reward equals the reward of one who recites a third [of the Quran] not including that surah, and leave the wisdom of the specification to His, the Exalted's, knowledge.

The same is said for its likes. This is the intent of making this among the mutashabih (ambiguous) which Allah the Exalted has reserved for His knowledge. This is no more distant or strange than the specification of some times and places for worship—that even if the worship is small, its reward is multiplied by many times over the reward of worship in its surroundings, for example, even if it is large. Indeed, He, the Exalted, has specified some times and places for the obligation of worship, and in some, for its prohibition. To Him, the Exalted, in all of that, belongs the wisdom that He knows best. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: "Silence on this issue is better than speaking about it, and safer."

Likewise, the hadith of Mu’awiyah ibn Mu’awiyah al-Laythi, with which the Imam opened the discussion on this noble surah, was extracted by al-Tabarani and Abu Ya’la through chains all of which are weak. The authentic hadiths that have come down regarding it are sufficient for its merit. Indeed, it is said because of that, it is the best surah in the Quran. Some have argued for this by what was narrated by al-Darimi in his Musnad from Abu al-Mughirah from Safwan al-Kala’i: A man said: "O Messenger of Allah, which surah of the Quran is the greatest?" He said: "'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One'." In the Musnad from the chains of Mu’adh ibn Rifa’ah and Usayd ibn Abd al-Rahman from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "Shall I not teach you the best three surahs that were revealed in the Torah, the Gospel, the Psalms, and the Great Quran?" I said: "Yes." He said: "Recite 'Say, He is Allah, [who is] One,' 'Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of daybreak,' and 'Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind'." Then he said: "O ‘Uqbah, do not forget them, and do not spend a night until you have recited them." Al-Tirmidhi narrated part of this hadith and called it hasan. It does not indicate that it is the best surah of the Quran absolutely, but rather that it is among the best.

Ibn al-Hassad said: "It is strange for those who deny the difference in merit, despite the abundance of texts mentioned regarding it." Those who speak of superiority differed. Some said the superiority returns to the greatness and multiplication of the reward according to the states of the soul and its fear and reflection upon the attributes of the Most High. It is said, rather, it returns to the essence of the wording; for what Surah al-Ikhlas contains, for example, of the indication of Oneness and the attributes of the Almighty, is not found in [Surah] Tabat, for example. So the superiority is only by the wonderful meanings and their abundance.

Al-Halimi narrated from al-Bayhaqi that the meaning of superiority between verses and surahs returns to things: First: That acting upon it is better than acting upon another, and more beneficial to people. Upon this, it is said that the verses of command, prohibition, promise, and threat are better than the verses of stories, because they are intended to emphasize the command, prohibition, warning, and glad tidings, and people have no lack of need for these matters, while they may have no need for stories. So that which is more beneficial to them and acts as the foundations is better for them than what is made secondary. Second: That it is said the verses that contain the enumeration of the names of Allah the Exalted and the explanation of His attributes and the indication of His greatness, the Almighty, are better in the sense that they are more majestic in rank than those that do not contain that. Third: That it is said a surah is better than a surah or a verse is better than a verse, in the sense that the reciter hastens for himself by reciting it a benefit other than the deferred reward, and through its recitation worship is performed—like the Verse of the Throne, al-Ikhlas, and the Mu’awwidhatayn—for their reciter hastens by reciting them protection from what is feared, seeking refuge with Allah the Exalted, and worship of the Almighty is performed through their recitation because of what they contain of mentioning the Almighty with the most excellent attributes, on the basis of belief in them and the soul’s tranquility in the merit of that mention and its blessing. As for the verses of ruling, the establishment of the ruling does not occur merely by their recitation; rather, knowledge is obtained by them.

It may be said that a surah is better than a surah because Allah the Exalted has made its recitation like the recitation of many times its equivalent of others, and has obligated by it a reward He did not obligate for others, even if the meaning for which it reached this amount does not appear to us. This is similar to what is said in the preference of some times and places over others, as you heard earlier. In general, superiority by any of these considerations does not contradict that all of it is the speech of Allah the Almighty and united in its relation to Him, the Almighty, as is not hidden. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

(In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful)

(Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One")

It is well known that the pronoun huwa (He) is the "pronoun of the state" (damir al-sha’n), and its position is in the nominative case as an initial subject (mubtada’). Its predicate is the sentence that follows it. A pronoun of this kind has no connective (rabit) because the sentence is, in meaning, identical to the subject itself.

The secret in starting with it is to alert [the listener] from the very beginning to the grandeur of its content, alongside the increased verification and consolidation it provides. The pronoun, at the outset, is not understood as anything other than an ambiguous affair of great significance, leaving the mind expectant for what lies ahead to explain it and remove its ambiguity. Thus, when the content arrives, it takes hold with a firmer grip.

The statement by Sheikh Abd al-Qahir in Dala'il al-I'jaz—that [the pronoun] has a subtle beauty and that [the sentence] would not be correct without it—is not universally accepted. Yes, al-Shihab al-Khafaji stated that there is a difficulty here: if the predicate is made to be the collective meaning of the sentence—the combination of "Allah" and "One" and the relation between them—then the apparent fact is that this totality is not the "state" (sha'n) which is the content of the sentence, as the state is singular, namely, Oneness. If, however, it is made to be the content of the sentence which is singular, then singling out the absence of a connective for the sentence predicated of the damir al-sha'n is not justified, since every such sentence is the same; for the predicate must be identical to the subject in essence, and it is only the content of the sentence, as a singular, that is identical to it.

The response to this is to choose the first alternative, as indicated by their occasional reference to this pronoun as the "pronoun of the story" (damir al-qissa). It is necessary that the content of the sentence, which is singular, is not a "story"; rather, the "story" is its meaning as explained in the chapters on propositional logic. Furthermore, they count expressions like the Prophet’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement, "The most truthful of what a servant has said [is] 'We are all Your servants; none can withhold what You grant, nor grant what You withhold, nor can one's status avail before You,'" as sentences that are identical in meaning to the subject and do not require a connective for that reason. It is known that what is being said is not the singular content, but the sentence with that meaning. This is why you see them mandating the breaking of the hamza in inna after a verb of saying, and similarly, their example with "My utterance is: 'Allah is sufficient for me and suffices'"—meaning, "That which I utter is this." It is apparent that what is uttered is the sentence in its known meaning.

Ibn Malik’s speech in al-Tashil indicates that the sentence that does not require a connective is identical to the subject, in that it has served as a predicate for a singular [subject] whose denotation is a sentence. This is also apparent in what we have said. That this is a "state" (sha'n), meaning a grand, significant affair, is based on what it contains; and describing speech as having "grandeur" or its opposite in this respect is common and widespread.

The scholar Ahmad al-Ghunaymi said: If it is meant that it is identical to it according to the concept, it is problematic due to the lack of benefit. If it is meant that it is identical in terms of the referent (musaddaq) despite the difference in concept—as is the case for all subjects with their predicates—then it may be said that this is also problematic, for the referent of the damir al-sha'n is broader than "Allah is One," and the specific is not predicated of the general in universal propositions. The claim of particularization in this context is rejected by their explicit statement that the damir al-sha'n is never free of ambiguity. In other words, the referent of the damir al-sha'n is singular, and the referent of the sentence is compound, and no singular is a compound. Therefore, you see them interpreting the sentence serving as a predicate into a singular that applies to the subject, so that it may correctly serve as a predicate for the damir al-sha'n; this is contradicted by their statement that it is not interpreted as a singular, even if it is in its place.

The response is that the meaning of their statement "it is the damir al-sha'n" is that it is a pronoun referring to the subject whose position is [the state], even if it was not mentioned previously, to signify that it is of such fame and prominence that everyone recalls it, every signifier points to it, and every pronoun returns to it. Regarding their statement that pronouns which refer to something later in utterance and rank include the damir al-sha'n, the fact that it refers to the sentence after it is a loose usage they adopted, because the explanation of the "state" and the determination of what is meant by it occurs through that [sentence]. Thus, the referent of the pronoun is exactly the same as the referent of the "state" to which it refers.

So, one chooses the second alternative: either "the state" refers to the known state as a claim, making the proposition specific, similar to "This is Zayd"; or "the state" is intended as a general meaning, making the proposition indefinite, which is equivalent to a particular one—as if it were said, "Some [part of the] state is: Allah is One." The ambiguity that they claim it possesses arises from the fact that this "some" is not determined before the mention of the sentence and its predication upon it. The referent of "the state," just as it can be singular, can also be a sentence; so let it be the same here. The first [view] is more likely, and the possibility of universality is an exaggeration, like saying "All prey is in the belly of the wild ass," as you can see. So reflect upon this.

They permitted it to be the pronoun of [the one] asked about, or [the one] whose attribute or relation is sought. Imam Ahmad recorded in his Musnad, as did al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Tirmidhi, al-Baghawi in his Mu'jam, Ibn 'Asim in al-Sunnah, and al-Hakim (who authenticated it) and others, from Ubayy ibn Ka'b that the polytheists said to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), "O Muhammad, trace for us [the lineage of] your Lord," and so Allah Almighty revealed, "Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One'" [the surah].

Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Tabarani in al-Awsat, and al-Bayhaqi—with a good chain—and others recorded from Jabir that he said: A Bedouin came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, "Trace for us your Lord," so Allah Almighty revealed, "Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One'..."

In al-Ma'alim, it is narrated from Ibn Abbas that 'Amir ibn al-Tufayl and Arbad ibn Rabi'ah came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). 'Amir said, "To what do you invite us, O Muhammad?" He replied, "To Allah." They said, "Describe Him for us; is He made of gold, or silver, or iron, or wood?" Then this Surah was revealed. Allah destroyed Arbad by a thunderbolt and 'Amir by the plague.

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat from Ibn Abbas that the Jews—among them Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf and Huyayy ibn Akhtab—came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, "O Muhammad, describe to us the Lord who sent you," and so Allah Almighty revealed the Surah. That the questioners were the Jews is narrated from al-Dahhak, Ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, and Muqatil, and it is apparent from this that the Surah is Madinan. The return of the pronoun to that [the Lord described in the question] is permissible due to it being known from the question, and its mention occurring therein.

He is the subject, and the Glorious Name is its predicate, and "One" is a predicate after a predicate. Al-Zamakhshari permitted it to be a substitute (badal) for the Glorious Name, based on the preferred view of allowing the indefinite to be a substitute for the definite, or that it is the predicate of a deleted subject, i.e., "He is One." Abu al-Baqa' permitted the Greatest Name to be a substitute for "He," and "One" to be the predicate.

Allah (May He be exalted and sanctified) is a proper name for the Essence that is Necessary of Existence, as held by the majority of the Ash'aris and others, contrary to the Mu'tazilah, who said that naming is impossible regarding Him (Subhanahu), because no one knows His Essence (Almighty) with a specificity such that a name could be applied to it; rather, He is known through universal concepts limited to an individual. Thus, the word is applied to such universal concepts and is not a proper name.

This was refuted by saying that He (Almighty) is aware of the specificity of His Essence, so it is permissible for Him to apply a word to it specifically, and thus it becomes a proper name. This is according to the position of those who hold that linguistic imposition (wad') is [by] Allah Almighty. It is apparent; however, it necessitates that what is understood by the word "Allah" is not what it was applied to, since no one other than He (Almighty) knows the specificity of His Essence, which is the object of the imposition in this scenario.

The statement that it is permissible for the universal concept to be a tool for imposition, and the object of imposition being the specificity to which the universal concept applies—as is said in this and its likes—also necessitates that the word is applied to what is not understood from it. We do not understand from His names (Almighty) except those universal concepts. It is apparent that the angels (peace be upon them) are in the same state because His Essence (Azza wa Jall) is veiled from other than Him (Subhanahu). Hence, some of the elite considered it most likely—as reported from the Proof of Islam—that the Glorious Name flows in its indication of the True Existent who encompasses the attributes of divinity, described with the attributes of Lordship, and singular in true existence, like proper names; meaning, it is not a proper name [by strict definition]. What relates to this has already been mentioned at the beginning of the book, so refer back to it.

There remains in this context an investigation: proper names, like "Zayd," are either each applied to the specific individual as is commonly understood. So if someone announces the birth of his son and names him Zayd, for instance, without seeing him, that word becomes a name for the imaginary form that occurred in his imagination. At that point, if the newborn does not possess this form, applying the name to him according to that imposition would not be valid. If it were said that it is applied to the universal concept limited to that individual, it would not be a proper name, as previously mentioned. Then, if we hear one of those proper names and have never seen its referent, we do not understand the specificity that he possesses; rather, we might imagine him in a form other than what he is. Either all those imaginary images are the object of its application, making it of the category of homonymous words with unlimited meanings, or the object of the application is only the specificity that he possesses, in which case anything else is outside the object of the application, and thus understanding other specificities from it would be an error.

So either the claim that these names are "true particulars" is abandoned and it is said that they are applications for universal concepts limited to the individual, or one of the other possibilities is accepted. Both views are subject to consideration, as you can see. So reflect.

"One" (ahad): They said its hamza is substituted for the waw, its origin being wahd. The substitution of an opened waw with a hamza is rare, such as their saying ana'ah for wana'ah, as it comes from al-wany, which is weakness. This is unlike ahad which accompanies negation and its likes, where it is intended for universality, as in His saying, "And there is no one among you who could prevent Us from him" (69:47), and His saying (peace be upon him), "Spoils have been made lawful for me, and they were not made lawful for anyone before me," and His saying, "Do you perceive any one of them?" (19:98), and His saying, "And do not invoke with Allah anyone" (72:18), and His saying, "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection..." (9:6). In these, its hamza is original. It is said that the hamza is original, like the hamza in al-akhir.

Regarding the difference between them, al-Raghib said: That which is specific to negation is for the purpose of encompassing the genus of speakers, covering the few and the many by way of gathering or separating, in the manner of "There is no one (ahad) in the house," meaning not one, and not two or more—neither gathered nor separated. This is why it is not correct to use it in affirmation, because the negation of opposites is valid, but the affirmation of them is not. If it were said, "There is someone (ahad) in the house," it would involve affirming one single person along with affirming what is above one; it is valid to say, "There is no one (ahad) of the two who are superior," and upon this is the verse mentioned earlier.

That which is used in affirmation is of three types: First, being added to the tens, such as ahada 'ashar (eleven) and ahadan wa 'ishrun (twenty-one). Second, being used as a possessor or possessed, in the meaning of "the first," as in His saying, "As for one of you, he will give drink to his lord of wine," and their saying "the day of al-ahad" (Sunday), meaning the first day. Third, being used absolutely as an adjective, and that is only in the description of Allah Almighty. Although its origin is wahid, ahad is used for other than Him (Subhanahu), such as the saying of al-Nabigha: "As if my baggage, and the day has departed from us, / With this Jalil (majestic one), upon one who is comfortable, [I am] alone (wahdi)."

Makki said: The origin of ahad is wahid, then they substituted the waw with a hamza, so two alifs gathered, and because the hamza resembles the alif, one of them was deleted for ease of pronunciation. Tha'lab distinguished between ahad and wahid by saying that numbers cannot be built upon ahad at the beginning; it is not said "ahad and two" as it is said "wahid and two," and it is not said "rajulun ahad" (a man who is one) as it is said "rajulun wahid." For this reason, it is specific to Him (Subhanahu). Some also distinguished between them by saying that ahad in negation is an explicit text for universality, unlike wahid, which is probable for universality and otherwise. Thus, one says, "There is no one (ahad) in the house, nay, two," and it is allowed to say, "There is no one (wahid) in the house, nay, two."

It is reported from some Hanafis that he said in distinguishing between them that in ahadiyah (oneness), partiality and cardinality are not entertained at all, whereas wahidiyah (singularity) entertains them; for it is said "one hundred wahid (one)" and "one thousand wahid (one)," but it is not said "one hundred ahad" except "one thousand ahad." Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan based the issue he mentioned in al-Jami' al-Kabir upon this: if a man had four wives and said, "By Allah, I will not approach any one of you," he becomes an ila' (oath-taker) to all of them, and it is not permitted for him to approach one of them except with an expiation. But if he said, "By Allah, I will not approach ahadan (one) of you," he only becomes an ila' regarding one of them, and the clarification is up to him.

Al-Khattabi distinguished by saying that ahadiyah is for the singleness of the Essence, and wahidiyah is for the negation of partnership in attributes. It is reported from the verifiers that they distinguished the opposite of this. Since in His (Subhanahu) state, one of the two matters does not separate from the other, it is said "The One, the Unique" (al-wahid al-ahad) as though they were one name.

Ahad here was interpreted by Ibn Abbas and Abu 'Ubaydah, as al-Jawzi said, as al-wahid (the One). It is supported by the recitation of al-A'mash, "Say, 'He is Allah, the One'." It is interpreted as that which is indivisible and does not divide. Some of the elite said that "the One" is applied to what is beneath it with gradation (tashkik); the intended meaning here, as it is used absolutely, is the One characterized by a singularity from which it is impossible to be more or more complete. It is that which is transcendent in its Essence from all types of composition and multiplicity, both externally and mentally, and all that necessitates either of them, such as corporeality, spatiality, and partnership in essence and its properties, like the necessity of existence, self-ability, and the perfect wisdom that necessitates divinity. This is taken from the speech of the Chief Abu 'Ali ibn Sina in his interpretation of this glorious Surah, where he said that "ahad" indicates that He (Almighty) is one from all aspects, and that there is no multiplicity there at all—neither conceptual multiplicity (which is the multiplicity of components, genera, and differentia), nor the multiplicity of external parts that are mentally distinct (as in matter and form), nor sensory multiplicity in potentiality or actuality (as in a body). This entails that He (Subhanahu) is transcendent from genus, differentia, matter, form, accidents, parts, organs, shapes, colors, and all that would impair the perfect unity and the true simplicity fitting for the generosity of His Face (Azza wa Jall), so that nothing can resemble Him or be equal to Him.

Ibn 'Aqil al-Hanbali said: What is valid for us to say, while affirming the attributes, is that He (Almighty) is One in His divinity, and nothing else. Other Salafis, such as al-Jahiz and Ibn Rajab, said: He (Subhanahu) is the One in His divinity and His Lordship; thus, there is no object of worship and no Lord other than Him (Azza wa Jall).

After describing Him (Almighty) with the attributes that have come for Him (Subhanahu), it was chosen that the meaning is "the complete singularity." This is based on the two ways: the pronoun being for the "state" (sha'n) and the pronoun being for the one asked about. It is not correct for "one by number" to be intended at all, as the speech would then be void of benefit. Some mentioned that the Glorious Name indicates all the attributes of perfection, which are the affirmative attributes—also called the attributes of grace (ikram)—and ahad indicates all the attributes of majesty, which are the negative attributes. The statement, by being two predicates, entails informing that the one asked about is characterized by all the attributes of majesty and perfection. This was countered by saying that ilahiyah (divinity) is comprehensive of all that; indeed, every one of the Beautiful Names is likewise, because the divine identity cannot be expressed due to its majesty and greatness except by saying "He is He," and describing that identity with its necessary consequences, some of which are affirmative and some negative. The name of Allah (Almighty) covers both of them; it is an indication of His (Almighty) identity, and Allah (Subhanahu) is like a definition for it, and that is why it is followed by it. The speech of the Chief [Ibn Sina] proclaims this, and we will indicate it, if Allah Almighty wills.

Abdullah and Ubayy recited, "He is Allah, One," without "Say." They have agreed that it is necessary in "Say, O disbelievers," and it is not permissible in "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined." It was said that perhaps this is because the Surah of the disbelievers is an opposition to the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or his disavowal of them, and such a matter is appropriate to be from Allah Almighty, as the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was commanded to warn and strive. The Surah "Tabbat" is a rebuke to Abu Lahab, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was upon a great character and profound manners; if he were commanded to say that, it would necessitate him facing him with it, even though it is his uncle (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). This Surah is about Tawhid (Oneness), which is appropriate to be stated by him sometimes and commanded to call to it at others.

It was said regarding the reason for "Say" in the Surah of the disbelievers that it contains what is not valid to be from Allah Almighty, such as "I do not worship what you worship," so there must be the mention of "Say." In this there is a view, because it does not necessitate its mention with this specific wording, so understand. Al-Dawani said regarding the reason for omitting "Say" in "Tabbat": it is not far-fetched to say that the speech concerning the rebuke of Abu Lahab, if it were from Allah Almighty, would be more effective in his reprimanding and disgracing. It was said that there is a symbol in it that, since he is his uncle (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), it is not appropriate that he should dishonor him with such words except the One who created him, as it is not far-fetched that a Muslim might be hurt by one of his relatives if someone else were to insult him. Allah (Azza wa Jall) brought this about. Ibn Abi al-Dunya and Ibn 'Asakir recorded from Ja'far ibn Muhammad from his father (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said: Durrah, the daughter of Abu Lahab, passed by a man who said, "This is the daughter of the enemy of Allah, Abu Lahab." She went to him and said, "Allah Almighty mentioned my father with prominence and honor, and left your father in his ignorance." Then she mentioned that to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), so he gave a sermon and said, "A Muslim should not be hurt because of a disbeliever."

Furthermore, the affirmation of "Say" in the recitation of the majority in the Mus'haf, and the commitment to reciting it in this Surah and its likes—despite it not being the habit of the one commanded to say "Say" to utter anything in the place of being commanded other than what is to be said—was addressed by al-Maturidi in al-Ta'wilat: "Because the one commanded is not only the person addressed, but every person who is tested by what the person commanded is tested by." So it was affirmed to remain for the passage of time as a favor to the servants. It was said: it is possible to say that the one addressed by "Say" is the reciter himself; it is as if Allah (Almighty) has informed him that whoever is at the level of this content should command himself to say it and not exceed it. So reflect. And Allah Almighty is the Grantor of success. His saying...