Tafsir of An-Nahl 16:78

(This is coordinated with His saying: "And Allah made for you from yourselves mates," remaining consistent with the sequence of the proofs of monotheism. It is understood from the words of the scholar al-Tayyibi that the Almighty, following His saying—Exalted be He—"Indeed, Allah is over all things competent," followed it with His saying—Majestic be He—"And Allah brought you out," et cetera, coordinated with the conjunction 'wa' (and), signaling that the capabilities of the Almighty are endless, of which the mentioned items are but a few. That the coordination is with His saying—Exalted be He—"Indeed, Allah..." is the interpretation to which the soul inclines, and it is the primary one.)

Al-Ummahat (the mothers), with the hamzah dammah and the mim fathah, is the plural of umm (mother). The ha at the end is an addition, and it is common for it to be added to this word, although it also appears without it. The meaning in both cases is the same; the one with the addition is for humans, and the one without it is for animals. The root of the singular is fa'l (as in the word al-umumah). It comes with the ha as in the words of Qusay ibn Kilab—may mercy be upon them both: "My mother is Khunduf, and Ilyas is my father." This usage is rare, and the addition of the ha in the verb—as is said in ihraq (pouring)—is even rarer. There is a scholarly discussion regarding this, so refer to al-Sihah and other [lexicons].

Hamzah recited it with the kasrah of the hamzah and the mim here and in Surat al-Zumar, al-Najm, and al-Rum. Al-Kisa’i recited it with the kasrah of the mim in all of them. Al-A'mash recited it by omitting the hamzah and giving the mim a kasrah. Ibn Abi Layla recited it by omitting the hamzah and giving the mim a fathah. Abu Hatim said: "Omitting the hamzah is poor, but the recitation of Ibn Abi Layla is more correct." It was thus, according to what is in al-Bahr, because the kasrah of the mim is only there to follow the vowel of the hamzah; if the hamzah is omitted, the assimilation (following of the vowel) disappears, unlike in the recitation of Ibn Abi Layla, for he kept the mim upon its vowel [the original fathah].

"...not knowing anything" is in the position of a state (hal), and "anything" (shay'an) is accusative as a verbal noun (masdar) or as the direct object of "knowing." The negation is directed towards it. "Knowing" here means "acquaintance," meaning: you were not acquainted with anything at all—neither the right of the Bestower nor other things. It is said: "anything of your benefits." It is also said: "of what was decreed for you regarding happiness or misery." And it is said: "of what was taken from you as a covenant in the loins of your fathers." The apparent meaning is generality, and there is no need for specification. From Wahb: "The newborn is born oblivious for seven days, perceiving neither comfort nor pain."

Some have claimed that the soul, at the beginning of its creation, is not devoid of presential knowledge (al-'ilm al-huduri), which is its knowledge of itself, since the non-material does not disappear from its essence at all. The Sheikh [Ibn Sina] said in some of his notes when proving the immateriality of the soul: "You are never oblivious of your essence at all in any state, even in the state of sleep or intoxication. If one were to allow that one could be oblivious of one's essence in some states—such that there would be no difference between the human and an inanimate object in that state—then this proof would be of no use." Bahmanyar said in al-Tahsil, in the chapter on Intellect and the Intelligible: "The human soul perceives its essence; therefore, its existence must be intellectual. Its very existence is its very perception, which is why it never disappears from its essence." Similar statements exist in al-Shifa.

You know that the claim of "non-oblivion" is built upon subtle premises, such as the immateriality of the soul—which the naturalists have entirely rejected—and that everything immaterial is a knower. Neither point has been proven. Furthermore, what is narrated—that the soul's knowledge of its essence is its very essence—does not contradict that the essence being knowledge of itself has a condition; until that condition is realized, the essence is not knowledge of itself, just as the "Flowing Principle" (al-mabda' al-fayyad) being a repository for the intelligibles of Zayd, for instance, is a condition; if it is realized, it is realized, otherwise not. This is supported by the fact that the soul's knowledge of its attributes is also, according to them, the same, and yet oblivion of the attribute is permitted in some instances, as is not hidden.

Moreover, if we say that the reality of the essence is not absent from it, and we say that this is "knowledge," then the reality of the immaterial soul must be known to everyone. It is clear that this is not the case. Additionally, the researcher al-Tusi has rejected their statement: "You are never oblivious of your essence," and said: "A person who has fainted may be oblivious of their essence during the time of fainting," and there are many similar psychic ailments.

It is astonishing that some eminent scholars have stated that the meaning of it being "devoid" at the beginning of creation is its state while attached to the body. They say that this does not contradict what the Sheikh said—that a child latches onto the breast at birth by intuitive inspiration—because the state of attachment is prior to that. This is stated after they mentioned that being devoid at the beginning of creation appears to those of intuition by observing the state of the child and the experiences of its conditions. The aspect of the astonishment is apparent, so understand and do not be heedless.

Interpreting "knowledge" as "acquaintance" is the view held by many. In Amali al-'Izz, it is stated that it is not permissible to keep the word "knowledge" to its literal meaning (such that "anything" is the masdar) for two reasons: First, it would require omitting two objects, which is contrary to the principle. Second, if it were to remain in its literal sense, then people would know the "subject" (which is one of the two objects) before emerging from the wombs, which is impossible due to the impossibility of knowledge for one who has not yet been born. The explanation of this is: if we say, "I knew Zayd to be residing," the knowledge of Zayd must be prior to this knowledge, and this knowledge only relates to his residing. Similarly, if you say, "I did not know Zayd to be residing," what was not known is Zayd's residing; as for Zayd himself, he is known, and that is understood from the premise. Therefore, where knowledge is affirmed or negated, the first object must be known. Thus, it is determined to interpret knowledge as "acquaintance."

From this, it is known that it is sound to keep "knowledge" to its literal meaning, with "anything" as its first object, and the second object is omitted.

His saying—Exalted be He—"And He made for you hearing, sight, and hearts" may be an initial sentence, and it may be coordinated with the sentence that is a predicate. The conjunction 'wa' does not require sequential order. The subtlety of delaying it is that hearing and the like, as tools of perception, are only counted as such when they feel and perceive, which happens after the emergence [from the womb]. If "made" (ja'ala) is transitive to one object—meaning "created"—then "for you" (lakum) is related to it. If it is transitive to two objects—meaning "rendered"—then it is the second object. The fronting of the prepositional phrase over the accusative objects is for the aforementioned reason, which is not hidden.

The meaning is: He made these things for you as tools by which you obtain knowledge and acquaintance, by sensing with your faculties the particulars of things and perceiving them with your hearts, and by becoming aware of the similarities and differences between them through the repetition of sensation. Thus, intuitive sciences are obtained for you, through which you are enabled to acquire acquired sciences by reflection. This is a summary of what the Imam mentioned in this place, and it is the basis of what many philosophers have held: that the soul, at the beginning of its state, is void of sciences. When it utilizes the external senses, it perceives through the estimative faculty (al-quwwa al-wahmiyya) particular things through particular similarities and differences between them, and so it prepares itself for the "Flowing Principle" to bestow upon it universal similarities. They establish four stages for the soul: the stage of the material intellect, the stage of the intellect by habit, the stage of the actual intellect, and the stage of the acquired intellect. They claim that the soul does not perceive the material particular. They have long speeches and extensive arguments in this place.

The Ahl al-Sunnah say: The soul perceives both the universal and the particular absolutely, by using the faculties or without them, as is detailed in its proper place. The verification of this matter, with its pros and cons, requires much elaboration. It has been presented, and the help of the Ever-Living, the Sustainer—Majestic is His Majesty and abundant is His bounty—is sought against the incidents that have caused a disturbance in the affairs of the elite and the common, which has confused my mind and stood between me and the verification of this. I ask Allah—Exalted be He—to favor us with that which pleases the heart and to facilitate for us that which is an aid in achieving the desired goal.

In short, the tradition from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with both of them—regarding this verse is that he said: "He—Sublime be He—means that He made that for you so that you may hear the exhortations of Allah—Exalted be He—and see what Allah—Exalted be He—has bestowed upon you by bringing you out of the bellies of your mothers until you became men, and so that you may comprehend His greatness—Sublime be He." It is said: The meaning is that He made the hearing for you so that you may hear through it the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, which are auditory proofs, so that you may deduce from them what is beneficial for you in your religion. [He made] the sight so that you may see through it the wonders of His craftsmanship—Exalted be He—and the marvels of His creation—Sublime be He—so that you may deduce from them His oneness—Majestic is He. [He made] the hearts so that you may comprehend through them the meanings of the things which He—Sublime be He—has made as proofs for you. According to these two views, hearing and sight are in their literal sense, and we have not seen anyone who permitted taking them out of that.

It is permitted that they mean the external senses in the first view. Af'idah (hearts) is the plural of fu'ad (heart), which is the center of the heart, just as the heart is the center of the chest. This plural, according to what is in al-Kashshaf, is one of the plurals of paucity that functions as a plural of abundance, since no other plural was heard in the transmissions, just as shusu' was used as the plural of shis' (sandal strap) and nothing else. So it followed that path. Al-Zajjaj said: "Fu'ad was not pluralized as a large number." Sometimes it is said af'idah and fu'dan, just as it is said aghribah and ghirban in the plural of ghurab (crow).

In al-Tafsir al-Kabir: "Perhaps the fu'ad was pluralized using the form of paucity to alert [us] that hearing and sight are many, while the fu'ad is few because it was only created for true knowledge and certain sciences, and most people do not have that; rather, they are occupied with animalistic actions and predatory attributes, so it is as if their fu'ad is not a fu'ad. That is why it was mentioned in its plural form using the plural of paucity." The objection to this is al-absar (sights), as it is also a plural of paucity. In al-Bahr, after citing that it is the statement of al-Zayani, he says: "Were it not for the eminence of its author, we would not have recorded it in books. What is said regarding this is what al-Zamakhshari said, from what was mentioned previously, except that his statement: 'No plural for shis' came except shusu',' is not correct; rather, ashsu' came as a plural of paucity of paucity." So, remember this and do not be heedless.

Some have claimed that the fu'ad only perceives what is not limited by place, how, or quantity, and so on; and that for every perceived object, there is a perceiving faculty that suits it, which cannot be perceived by another, like the external perceived objects of sounds, colors, tastes, and the like, and the external senses of hearing, sight, and taste, etc. This is as you can see.

The singularization of "hearing" (al-sam') is because it is originally a verbal noun (masdar). It is also said: It was singularized, while "sights" (al-absar) was pluralized, to indicate that its perceived objects are of one type, while the perceived objects of sight are more than that. Its priority is because it is the path for receiving revelation, or because its perception is prior to the perception of sight. It is also said: Because its perceived objects are fewer than the perceived objects of sight. The dispute over which is superior is famous and has already passed. Their precedence over the "hearts"—which refers to the intellect—is due to the priority of the external over the internal, or because they have a role in its perception in a general sense; rather, they are its servants, and servants go before their masters. Many traditions command prioritizing [hearing and sight] over the obligations of worship. Or [it is because] their perceived objects are few compared to its [the heart's] perceived objects; how could it be otherwise, when its perceived objects can hardly be counted? Even if it is said that the intellect has a limit it reaches, just as sight has a limit. Some have taken comfort in mentioning only what points to it, without adding what points to the other internal faculties, to negate the five internal senses that the philosophers established—which is not free from murkiness. The detailed discussion is in its proper place.

"...that you might be grateful." (So that you may recognize what He—Sublime be He—has bestowed upon you, stage by stage, and thus be grateful to Him. It is said: The meaning is that He made that so that you might be grateful to Him by using what was mentioned for the purpose for which it was created.)