Tafsir of Al-Isra 17:84

"Say, everyone acts according to his shakila..."

After He (the Almighty) mentioned the state of the Quran regarding the believers and the disbelievers, and clarified the state of the disbeliever in both the conditions of being blessed and its opposite, He mentioned that which serves as an answer to whoever asks: "Why was the matter thus?" He (the Exalted) said: "Say, everyone" — meaning every individual, whether believer or disbeliever, the one who turns away or the one who draws near, the hopeful or the despairing — "acts according to his shakila," that is, according to his own path and methodology which conforms to his state and what he is in essence. It resembles him in goodness and evil; [this is derived] from the saying, "a road dhu shawakil," meaning paths that branch out from it. It is taken from al-shakl (with a fatḥa on the shīn), meaning the likeness and the peer. It is said, "I am not of his shakl nor his shākila." As for al-shikl (with a kasra on the shīn), it refers to appearance or form; it is said, "a girl of beautiful shikl," meaning appearance. The apparent meaning of the Qāmūs is that both shakl and shikl are used for "likeness" and "form."

This interpretation is narrated from al-Farrā’ and al-Zajjāj, and it was chosen by al-Zamakhsharī and others due to the saying of the Almighty: "For your Lord, who brought you into existence while you are in opposition, is most knowing of who is best guided in way"—meaning the most upright path and the clearest methodology. Mujāhid interpreted shākila as "nature," based on the root of shakalta al-dābba (you tethered the beast), meaning he acts according to the nature that has "tethered" him, for the dominion of nature over man is apparent, binding, and overpowering. This is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with both). Similar in derivation is the interpretation by some of it as "habit"—and it is a famous saying among them that "habits are overpowering." Likewise is the interpretation of it by Ibn Zayd as "religion." Both interpretations are inferior to the first two, though perhaps "religion" here is in the sense of "state," which is one of its meanings.

The Imām and others permitted that the intended meaning is that everyone acts according to what conforms to the essence of his own self and the requirement of his soul. If it is a radiant, free, pure, and celestial soul, there emanate from it virtuous and noble deeds ("And the good land produces its vegetation by the permission of its Lord"). And if it is a murky, base, wicked, dark, and lowly soul, there emanate from it vile and corrupt deeds ("But that which is bad does not produce except with difficulty"). He chose [the view] that human rational souls differ in essence, and thus their effects differ. There will be further discussion on this, if Allah wills, soon.

It is not an objection to say: "If the baseness or nobility of deeds follows the baseness or nobility of the soul, and these are innate matters in which choice has no role, then why the praise, blame, reward, and punishment?" This is because they said: This is an essential matter, namely the good readiness of the soul in itself or its evil readiness in itself. The soul is not rewarded or punished except for its readiness in eternity and its seeking of that through the language of its state. The famous view is that this [readiness] is not "made" (created as a result); rather, what is "made" is its existence and its manifestation according to what it is in itself. So act, for everyone is facilitated for that which he was created. Whoever finds good, let him praise Allah, and whoever finds otherwise, let him not blame anyone but himself. Some said: It is "made" through simple creation, meaning it is an effect of the Most Sacred Overflow (al-fayḍ al-aqdas), which is the requirement of His Essence (the Almighty) by way of necessity. The same applies to the first two views.

Some of the later Islamic philosophers, who attempted to reconcile Sharia and philosophy according to their views, said: The essence of man, according to his original nature (fiṭra), requires only obedience. Its requiring disobedience is due to extraneous accidents, similar to illness and the departure from the natural state. Thus, its inclination toward disobedience is like the inclination of one with a distorted temperament to eat clay. It has been proven in [natural] philosophy that nature, due to an extraneous accident, produces in the body of the sick a special temperament called "illness." Thus, the illness is from nature through the mediation of the extraneous accident, just as health is from it. In the Hadith Qudsi: "I created all My servants as hunafā’ (inclined toward truth), but then the devils came to them and diverted them from their religion." And in the tradition: "Every newborn is born upon the fiṭra of Islam, then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Magian"—meaning by way of the devils, or it is meant to include the devils of mankind and jinn, or the devils are a metaphor for the extraneous accidents. If it were not for the "touch" of the devil, the creation would not have sinned and would have remained upon their original fiṭra. But the devil touched them, and their original fiṭra became corrupted for them. Consequently, they required things contrary to them, opposed to their beautiful divine essence, from dark forms, and they forgot themselves and what they were fashioned upon. "Were it not for the disturbing nights, the qaṭā bird would not leave the comfort of its sleep." Therefore, they needed messengers to convey to them the signs of Allah (the Almighty) and to establish for them that which reminds them of the covenant of their own essences, such as prayer, fasting, zakat, and upholding kinship ties, so that they might return to their original fiṭra and the requirement of their beautiful essence, and their temperament might reach equilibrium and their crookedness be rectified. Thus it was said: "The prophets are the doctors, and they are most knowing of the disease and the remedy."

Furthermore, this "disease" which befell their essences and the contrary state that arose within them—had they not found in their essences an acceptance for these things to befall them and an allowance for them to attach to them, they would not have occurred or attached. So, when the requirement of their essences is that contrary matters attach to them, and those matters do attach, two aspects meet in them: conformity and opposition. As for it being "conforming," it is because their essences required it; as for it being "opposing," it is because they required it to be something that opposes them. If it were not opposing, it would not be what was supposed as required by them, but rather something else. Look at nature, which requires a dryness that preserves any form, until it becomes a retainer of a forced form that contradicts its natural sphericity, and prevents it from returning to it. The occurrence of that form for the earth-element is because it is constrained from one aspect and imprinted from another. Thus, when such an opposing factor occurs, man is delighted and pained, happy and miserable; delighted, yet his delight is his pain; happy, yet his happiness is his misery. By your life, this is a strange matter, yet it is clarified in a strange way. Whoever reflects and is fair will see that there is no resolution for many of the doubts in this chapter except by going to the belief in "eternal readiness," and that everything has a state in itself—setting aside all other considerations—upon which nothing is bestowed except that [state], so that it does not necessitate that knowledge turn into ignorance, which is one of the greatest impossibilities. Reward and punishment are dependent on that. So glory be to the Wise, the Owner. Thus it is established, for many feet of great scholars—as great as mountains—have slipped in this position. We ask Allah (the Almighty) to illuminate our understandings and make our feet firm. And there is no power nor strength except with Allah, the Most High, the Almighty.

Know then that it is narrated from Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "I have not seen in the Quran anything more hopeful than this verse. Nothing conforms to the servant except disobedience, and nothing conforms to the Lord except forgiveness." He said this when they were discussing the Quran. ‘Umar said: "I have not seen a verse more hopeful than that which contains: 'The Forgiver of sin and Acceptor of repentance' (40:3)—He put forgiveness before the acceptance of repentance." And ‘Uthmān said: "I have not seen a verse more hopeful than: 'Inform My servants that it is I who am the Forgiving, the Merciful' (15:49)." And ‘Alī (may Allah honor his face) said: "I have not seen anything more hopeful than: 'O My servants who have transgressed against themselves' (39:53)." Others were mentioned as the most hopeful, and they will pass by you, if Allah wills. However, what al-Ṣiddīq said is only attainable on the premise that what is intended is that "everyone, absolutely, acts according to his shakila." So understand.