Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:255

(Allah, there is no god but He) is a nominal sentence composed of a subject (mubtada) and a predicate (khabar). The meaning is that He alone is worthy of worship, no other. It has been said that there are five opinions regarding the case of the pronoun and the independent noun, as well as the Glorious Name if it were to replace them. Two of these opinions are considered valid, and three are disregarded.

The two valid opinions are:

1. That its nominative case is due to it being a substitute (badal).
2. That its nominative case is due to it being a predicate (khabar).

The first is the standard interpretation among grammarians and is the view of Ibn Malik. According to this, one must either assume a missing predicate or not. Those who assume one differ: some assume a general term such as "existence" or "possibility," while others assume a specific term such as "worshipped" or "for creation." The assumption of a general term is challenged by the fact that it necessitates one of two undesirable outcomes: either the failure to establish the existence of Allah, the Exalted, in actuality, or the lack of His transcendence—glory be to Him—from the possibility of partnership. Similarly, the assumption of a specific term is countered by the argument that there is no evidence for it or that it is obscure.

It is possible to answer by choosing the general assumption without any difficulty. As for the assumption of "existence," the negation of existence entails the negation of possibility; for if another individual were characterized by the necessity of existence, it would exist by necessity. Since it does not exist, it is known that it is not characterized by that. And since it is not characterized by the existence of necessity, it cannot be characterized by it, due to the impossibility of transformation. As for the assumption of "possibility," we say that it has been made clear that the possibility of a thing being characterized by the necessity of existence entails its actual characterization by it by necessity. Therefore, when its possibility is understood, its existence is also understood, for whatever does not exist cannot possibly be a necessary existence.

Furthermore, many have mentioned that the negation of the existence of any god other than Him, the Exalted, may be a level of monotheism upon which Islam is tied, and which suffices for the majority of the common people, even if they do not intellectually process the negation of its possibility, especially given their negligence and lack of awareness of it. Thus, the word’s lack of indication towards that is not harmful. Some have even said: The obligation of negation came while gods other than Allah, the Exalted, were existing; their worship was established and the polytheists were devoted to them in all corners of the earth. Therefore, people were commanded to negate their existence in terms of their being true gods. Had there been people at that time who believed in the possibility of a true god existing other than Him, but that he simply does not exist, they would have been commanded to negate that possibility. It is not hidden that this is not a firm position.

It is possible to answer by choosing the specific assumption—that the specific term is "worthy of worship"—and the context is a clear indication of this. This is challenged by the argument that it does not indicate the negation of plurality, neither in possibility nor in actuality, because it allows for the existence of a god other than Him—glorified be He—who is not worthy of worship. It is also argued that one could say: the intended meaning is either the negation of a "worthy one" other than Him in actuality or in possibility. The first does not negate possibility, and the second does not indicate His—the Exalted’s—actual worthiness.

The response to this is that it is known that the necessity of existence is the source of all perfections; there is no doubt that it entails the worthiness of glorification and sanctification, and there is no meaning for the "worthiness of worship" other than this. If nothing other than Him, the Exalted, is worthy of worship, then nothing other than Him exists; otherwise, it would definitely be worthy of worship. And if it does not exist, it is not possible either, as has been pointed out. Thus, it is proven that the negation of worthiness entails the negation of plurality entirely.

As for those who reject the assumption of a predicate, the majority of them hold that the la (in la ilaha) has no predicate. This is challenged by the argument that it would necessitate the absence of a judgment or contract ('aqd), which is clearly false, as monotheism necessarily requires it. The response is that the claim of "no need" does not remove the compound of la and its noun from the status of a contract, for its meaning is: "This genus is negated from this individual." Otherwise, for them, it means it is not dependent on the place of the noun of la, and its declension appears in what follows it. There is no room for considering it an exception (istithna'), for if it were, the speech would not signify monotheism. Its sum would then be: "This genus, assuming this individual is not included in it, is negated," and one would understand from it that the negation does not apply to individuals not excluded from it, which is far removed from monotheism, as is obvious.

The substitution (badal) is considered problematic from two angles:

1. It is a partial substitution (badal ba'd min kull), and there is no pronoun in the substitute-from (mubdal minhu) which is a condition for it.
2. There is a contradiction between them, for the substitute is affirmative and the substitute-from is negated.

The answer to the first is that illa (except) suffices in place of the pronoun because it implies the partiality. As for the second, it is a substitute for the first in the function of the agent, and their contradiction in affirmation and negation does not prevent substitution. Furthermore, if it were said that the substitute in an exception is a separate category, it would not be far-fetched.

The second of the two valid opinions, which is that of the predicative nature of what follows illa, was held by a group. It is weakened by the fact that it would necessitate la acting upon definite nouns, while it does not act upon them, and because its noun is general while what follows illa is specific—how then can it be a predicate? They have said: "The animal is a human" is impossible. The response to the first is that la has no function in the predicate according to the view of Sibawayh; rather, upon its entry, it is in the nominative case due to what it was in before, so it does not necessitate its action upon a definite noun. This is as you see. As for the second, we do not concede that the structure reports the specific about the general, for the generality is negated and the speech is driven towards generality, and the specification by one of the individuals is indicated by the generality—though there is some dispute in this.

As for the three disregarded opinions:

1. That illa is not an exception particle but means ghayr (other than), and it, along with the Name of the Exalted, is an adjective, not a noun of la in terms of position. The assumption is: "No god other than Allah exists."
2. Attributed to al-Zamakhshari: la ilaha is in the position of the predicate, and illa and what follows it is in the position of the subject. The origin is "He or Allah is God." When it was intended to restrict the attribute to the described, the predicate was moved forward and the subject was coupled with illa, because the restricted-to (maqsur 'alayh) is what follows illa, and the restricted (maqsur) is what occurs in the context of negation. If the subject is coupled with illa, it is mandatory to move the predicate forward, as is established in its place.
3. That what follows illa is in the nominative case due to ilah (god), just as a subject is when it is an adjective, because ilah means "worshipped" (ma'luh), acting in place of the agent and filling the gap of the predicate, as in "not beaten is the orphan."

The objection to the first is that it is flawed in terms of meaning, for the purpose of the statement is two things: the negation of divinity from other than Him, the Exalted, and its affirmation for Him, Glory be to Him. This is only fulfilled if illa is for exception, as the negation and affirmation are then obtained by the explicit utterance (mantuq). If it means ghayr, the speech does not signify, by its explicit utterance, anything but the negation of divinity from other than Him, while its affirmation for Him—Exalted is His Name—is not obtained from the structure. Obtaining it from the implication (mafhum) is hardly acceptable, for if it is an implication of a title, there is no consideration for it, even among those who support implication (as only al-Daqqaq and some Hanbalis say so), and if it is an implication of an attribute, it is clearly not universally agreed upon.

The objection to the second is that, besides the artificiality, it necessitates the predicate being fixed/built (mabni) with la, while only the subject is built with it. Furthermore, if the matter were as mentioned, there would be no basis for the accusative case of the noun following illa in such a structure, yet a group has permitted it. As for the third, we do not concede that ilah is an adjective; otherwise, it would have to be declined and tanweened, and no one says that.

...I will return again and again, if Allah the Exalted wills, to the speech contained in this blessed word.

In His saying, "the Ever-Living" (al-Hayy), there are seven grammatical interpretations:

1. It is a second predicate for the Exalted Name.
2. It is a predicate for a deleted subject (i.e., He is the Ever-Living).
3. It is a substitute for His saying: (There is no god but He).
4. It is a substitute for He alone.
5. It is a subject whose predicate is (No slumber...).
6. It is a substitute for Allah.
7. It is an adjective for Him; the reading in the accusative case for praise supports this, as it is specific to adjectives.

Regarding its origin, there are two opinions:

1. Its origin is hayy with two ya's, from hayya-yahya.
2. Its origin is hayw, and the final waw, preceded by a kasra, was changed into a ya. That is why they wrote al-hayat with a waw in the Quranic script, drawing attention to this origin. The word al-hayawan supports this due to the appearance of this origin within it.

Regarding its form, it is said to be fa'l, and it is said to be fay'al, which was lightened like mayyit (dead). Life, according to the natural scientists, is the force following specific equilibrium, from which all animal forces emanate, or the force of nutrition, or the force of sensation, or a force requiring sensation and movement. All of this is impossible for Allah, the Exalted, to be characterized by, as it is among the attributes of bodies. Thus, in Him—Glory be to Him—it is an existing, real attribute inherent in His essence, whose depth cannot be fathomed and whose reality is not known, like His other attributes—Glory be to His Majesty—which are added to the totality of knowledge and power. It is not the essence itself in reality, nor is it fixed, nor existing, nor non-existent, as has been said by everyone.

So, the "Ever-Living" is the Essence in which that attribute resides. Some theologians interpreted it as "the One to whom it is valid to know and have power." The Imam countered this by saying that this degree is achieved by all animals, so how can it be fitting for Allah, the Exalted, to praise Himself with an attribute in which the most lowly animals share? Then he said, "What I hold in this matter is that 'Living' in the original language does not express this 'validity' itself; rather, everything that is complete in its genus is called living. Do you not see that the cultivation of ruined land is called 'reviving' (ihya') the dead? The attribute called 'life' in the terminology of the theologians was only named so because it is the perfection of the body to be characterized by that attribute. Thus, that attribute was naturally called life. The perfection of the state of trees is to be leafy and green; thus, this state was naturally called life. The original concept of 'Living' is its application to its most complete states and attributes. When this is the case, the problem disappears, because what is understood from 'Living' is the 'Complete.' Since that is not restricted, it indicates that He is complete absolutely. The One who is complete in such a way is the One who is not susceptible to non-existence, neither in His essence nor in His real, negative, or relational attributes." (End quote).

It is not hidden that this is a "gilded structure of crystal." First, because his saying that "Living" in the sense of "the one to whom it is valid to know and have power" is something shared by all animals, and therefore it is not fitting for Allah to praise Himself with it, is a position of extreme weakness. If he meant sharing in the application of the word, then not only "Living" is like that, but "All-Hearing" and "All-Seeing" are also similar in their application to the lowest animals, yet Allah the Exalted praised Himself with both, and the People of the Sunnah did not find fault with that. If he meant sharing in the reality, then Allah forbid, for sharing in reality is impossible between the dust and the Lord of Lords, and between the Eternal and the ephemeral. Whenever you say that sharing in the application of the word necessitates that sharing in reality, and there is no escape from it except by interpreting it metaphorically, you will be forced to apply the same to all other attributes, and no one among the People of the Sunnah says this.

Secondly, because the state of "life" in the language being in the sense of "perfection" is not established in any language book at all. What is established is otherwise. Describing inanimate objects with it is only done metaphorically, not literally, as was mistakenly thought. If he says that it is metaphorical for Allah as well with that meaning, the problem returns with the occurrence of sharing in "perfection" with inanimate objects, let alone animals. If he says, "The perfection of everything is relative to what is suitable for it," we say: "Then the life of every living thing is a reality relative to what is suitable for it, and there is nothing like unto Allah." It is as if you understand from my words a inclination towards the school of the Salaf in such places; let that be the understanding of the people—all the people.

How lovely is Hind and the land where Hind resides.

Al-Zamakhshari interpreted "the Ever-Living" as the Enduring One, over whom death and annihilation have no way. They considered this from him to be an interpretation based on what is customary in the speech of the Arabs. I see that there is something in my heart about it, and perhaps I am behind preventing that. Indeed, it is narrated from Qatada that He is "the One who does not die," which is not a definitive text for the claim.

"The Self-Sustaining" (al-Qayyum): A superlative form for "the one who stands." Its origin is qaywum on the form of fay'ul. The waw and ya met, and one was preceded by a sakin, so the waw was changed into a ya and assimilated. It is not permissible for it to be fa'ul, otherwise it would be qawwum, as it is wawi. Qiyam and qayyim are also permitted and recited. The first is narrated from Umar—may Allah be pleased with him. It has also been recited as al-Qaim and al-Qayyum in the accusative.

Its meaning, as Dihhak and Ibn Jubayr said, is "the Eternal in existence." It is also said: "the One who stands by Himself." And it is said: "the One who stands by the management of His creation, starting from their inception and the delivery of their provisions to them," which is what is narrated from Qatada. It is also said: "the One who is Knowing of affairs," from their saying "so-and-so stands by the book," i.e., he knows what is in it. Some said: "the One who is eternally standing by the management of creation and preserving it."

Al-Raghib mentioned that it is said "such-and-such stood" (qama) meaning it endured, and "he stood by such-and-such" (qama bi-) meaning he preserved it. The Qayyum is the One who stands and preserves everything, giving it what it needs for its structure. The apparent meaning is that "standing" is in the sense of "endurance," then it becomes, through the transitive form, "the one who ensures endurance," which is preservation. A critique was raised that the superlative is not one of the causes of transitivity; if Qayyum is stripped of its instrument, it would be in the sense of the intransitive (lazim), so interpreting it as "the Preserver" would not be correct. Furthermore, how does the superlative in preservation yield the "giving of what is needed for structure"? Perhaps it is because independence in preservation is only realized through that, as is clear.

It was argued against its interpretation as something like "the One who stands by Himself" that it would make the meaning of "He who sustains the heavens and the earth"—which occurs in the transmitted supplications—"He who is the Necessary Existence of the heavens and the earth," which is as you can see. Thus, it is apparent that it is in another sense that is fitting, as that is not valid except through some artificiality. A group went to the view that al-Qayyum is the Greatest Name of Allah, and they interpreted it as "the One who stands by Himself and sustains others." They interpreted "standing by Himself" as the Necessity of Existence, which entails all perfections and transcendence from all aspects of deficiency, and they made "sustaining others" involve all active attributes. Thus, the statement became correct for them. The strangest of opinions is that it is a Syriac word meaning "the One who does not sleep," but its remoteness is clear because then it would be repeated in His saying, (No slumber can seize Him nor sleep).

"Slumber" (sinah), with a kasra on the first letter, is a heaviness that precedes sleep; it is not sleep, based on the saying of 'Adi ibn al-Riqa': "And a drowsy man, the lassitude intended him, so it drifted in his eye, a slumber, and he was not asleep." "Sleep" is a self-evident concept that comes upon an animal from the relaxation of the brain's nerves due to the moisture of ascending vapors, such that the outward senses cease from sensing entirely. Al-Suyuti claimed in some of his treatises that its cause is the smelling of air that blows from under the Throne. Perhaps he meant the ascending of vapors from the stomach under the heart, which is the throne of the spirit; otherwise, I do not understand it.

The precedence of sinah over nawm (sleep) and the measure of the superlative require precedence [of the stronger over the weaker], but it observes the existential order. Since it precedes sleep in the external world, it was placed before it in the wording. It is also said: it is by way of completion, which is more eloquent because of the emphasis it contains, as the negation of slumber necessitates the negation of sleep implicitly; when it is negated a second time, it is more eloquent. This was countered by saying that it is in the style of encompassing and enumeration, which requires observing the existential order and starting from the lightest to the lighter, as in His saying: (It leaves out no small thing, nor a great one). For this reason, the word la (nor) was placed in the middle, strictly for encompassing and the inclusion of the negation for each of them. It is said: the delay of "sleep" is a concern for the rhymes, but it is not hidden that this is a sign of a narrow mind.

Some researchers said: All this is only needed if "seizing" is taken in the sense of occurrence and affliction. But if it is taken in the sense of overpowering and subduing, as mentioned by al-Raghib and other masters of language—from which is His saying: (The seizure of a Mighty, Omnipotent One)—then the order is according to the apparent requirement, as the meaning would be: "Neither slumber nor sleep—which is more overpowering than it—can overcome Him." The sentence is a negation of anthropomorphism and a transcendence of Him, the Exalted, from having a likeness among the living, for they are not free from such things; how then could they resemble Him? It contains an emphasis on His—the Exalted’s—being the Ever-Living and Self-Sustaining, because sleep is a defect that contradicts the endurance of life and its persistence. His attributes—the Exalted—are eternal, having no cessation, and he whom sleep and overpowering seize is not a Necessary Existence, nor eternally knowing, nor a keeper with powerful preservation.

Ibn Abi Hatim and others narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the Children of Israel said: "O Musa, does your Lord sleep?" He said: "Fear Allah, the Exalted." Then his Lord called him: "O Musa, they asked you if your Lord sleeps? Take two glass containers in your hands and stand through the night." Musa did so. When a third of the night had passed, he became drowsy and fell onto his knees, then he recovered and held them. When it was the end of the night, he became drowsy, and the glass containers fell and broke. He said: "O Musa, if I were to sleep, the heavens and the earth would fall and perish, just as the glass containers did in your hands." Because of the emphasis in it, like what follows, the conjunctive was omitted. It is either isti'nafiyyah (a new sentence) having no place in grammar, or an emphatic state from the pronoun hidden in al-Qayyum. It is also permitted that it be a predicate for "the Ever-Living" or for the Glorious Name.

(To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth) is a confirmation of His Self-Sustaining nature—the Exalted—and an argument for His uniqueness in divinity. "What is in them" refers to what is more general than their parts—the inward and the outward—and the things outside them that are established within them, from the rational and the non-rational. Thus, it is known from the verse the negation of the sun, moon, all stars, angels, idols, and tyrants being gods worthy of worship.

(Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?) is an interrogative of denial, and therefore illa was entered. The intent is to clarify the greatness of His state—the Exalted—and that there is no one who equals or nears Him such that he acts independently to push back what He wills to push back by way of intercession, humility, and submission, let alone acting independently in defiance, opposition, or enmity. In this is a total despair for the disbelievers who claimed that their gods were intercessors for them with Allah, the Exalted.

(He knows what is before them)—i.e., the affair of the world—(and what is behind them)—i.e., the affair of the Hereafter. Mujahid, Ibn Jurayj, and others said this. It is also narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—and Qatada similarly. It is also said: "what they perceive and what they do not," or "what they sense and understand." All are possible. The direction of the general application is apparent. The collective pronoun refers back to "what is in the heavens," etc., except that the rational is favored over the non-rational. It is said: it refers to the rational ones included in it, so there is no favoring. It is permitted that it refers to what is indicated by "Who is he" from the angels and prophets. It is said: the prophets especially. The knowledge of "what is before them and what is behind them" is a metaphor for the encompassment of His—the Exalted's—knowledge. The sentence is either a new start, or a predicate for what preceded, or a state of the pronoun in "intercede," or of the genitive in "with His permission."

(And they encompass nothing of His knowledge)—i.e., His known things—like their saying: "O Allah, forgive us Your knowledge regarding us." Encompassing a thing by knowledge is to know it as it is in reality. The meaning is: no one among these knows the essence of anything of His known things—the Exalted—(except what He wills)—that he should know. It is permitted that "His knowledge" refers to His special known thing, which is everything in the Unseen: (He does not reveal His Unseen to anyone, except to a messenger whom He has chosen). This sentence was conjoined to what preceded it because of its difference from it, for that signifies that He—the Exalted—knows everything, while this signifies that no one else knows it. Their sum indicates His uniqueness—the Exalted—in the Essential Knowledge, which is one of the foundations of the attributes of perfection that the God—the Exalted is His Name—must be characterized by in actuality.

(His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth). The Kursi is a body before the Throne, encompassing the seven heavens. Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—that he said: "If the seven heavens and the seven earths were spread out and then connected one to another, they would not be in the vastness of the Kursi except like a ring in a wilderness." It is other than the Throne, as indicated by what Ibn Jarir, Abu al-Shaykh, and Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Abu Dharr, that he asked the Prophet—peace be upon him—about the Kursi, and he said: "O Abu Dharr, the seven heavens and the seven earths compared to the Kursi are only like a ring thrown in a wilderness, and the excellence of the Throne over the Kursi is like the excellence of the wilderness over that ring." In a narration of al-Daraqutni and al-Khatib from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—he said: The Prophet—peace be upon him—was asked about His saying: (His Kursi extends...), he said: "His Kursi is the place of His two feet, and the Throne cannot be measured."

It is said: It is the Throne itself; this is attributed to al-Hasan. It is said: It is Allah's power. It is said: It is His management. It is said: It is an angel from among His angels. It is said: It is a metaphor for knowledge, from the naming of a thing by its place, because the Kursi is the place of the scholar who possesses the knowledge, so it becomes a place for knowledge by its dependence, because the accident follows the locus in occupying space, until they went to the point that it is the meaning of the accident's subsistence in the locus. This was narrated from Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both. It is said: It is the King, taken from the King's kursi. It is said: The original meaning of kursi is what one sits upon, and it does not exceed the seat of the one sitting. The speech is driven by way of representation for His greatness—the Exalted is His Name—and the vastness of His authority and the encompassment of His knowledge over all things. Thus, in the speech is a representational metaphor, and there is neither a kursi there, nor one sitting, nor sitting.

This is what a great multitude of the Khalaf (the later ones) chose, fleeing from the delusion of anthropomorphism. They interpreted the hadiths whose outward meaning is to carry the Kursi as a physical body encompassing, in such a manner, especially the hadiths that mention the "foot," as we mentioned earlier. Like the hadith narrated by al-Bayhaqi and others from Abu Musa al-Ash'ari: "The Kursi is the place of the two feet, and it has a creaking sound like the creaking of a saddle." In a narration from Umar, attributed to the Prophet: "It has a creaking sound like the creaking of a new saddle when someone who weighs it down sits on it, such that four fingers exceed it." You know that this and its likes are not a strong call for the negation of the Kursi entirely. The truth is that it is established, as the authentic reports have spoken of it, and the delusion of anthropomorphism is not to be heeded; otherwise, it would necessitate the negation of many attributes, and this is far from following the Lawgiver and submitting to Him.

Most of the pious Salaf considered this from the ambiguous matters (mutashabih) which they do not encompass with knowledge, and they entrusted its knowledge to Allah, along with declaring the utmost transcendence and sanctification to Him—the Exalted is His Name. The proponents of manifestations among our Sufi masters—may Allah sanctify their secrets—did not find anything of the likes of this to be problematic. Some of the gnostics among them mentioned that the Kursi is an expression of the manifestation of the totality of active attributes; thus, it is a divine manifestation and a place for the execution of commands, prohibitions, creation, and destruction, which are expressed by the "two feet." It has extended over the heavens and the earth, both in essential existence and in prescriptive command, because their restricted existence is from the effects of the active attributes of which it is a manifestation. The "two feet" in the hadiths are not expressions of the two feet of a man and the place of sandals—Allah is far exalted above that—nor is the "creaking" an expression of what you hear and understand in the observable world. Rather, if you do not entrust its knowledge to the All-Knowing, the All-Expert, it is an indication of the emergence of contradictory things or their meeting in that manifestation, which is the origin of detail and ambiguity, the place of creation and destruction, and the center of harm, benefit, differentiation, and gathering.

The meaning of "four fingers exceed it," if the pronoun refers to the saddle, is apparent. If it refers to the Kursi, it is an indication of the existence of "Presences" that are manifestations for some of the Names that have not emerged to the sensory world, and it is impossible for anyone to see them except for one who has been "born twice." It is not meant by the "four fingers" what you know from yourself. The gnostics have speech other than this in this station, and perhaps we will point to some of it, if Allah the Exalted wills.

Then, the famous view is that the ya in kursi is not for relational attribution, and its derivation is from al-kurs—which is gathering—and from it is al-kurrasah (notebook) for the pages gathering knowledge. It is said: It is attributed to al-kursi (with a kasra), which is the gathered/packed thing, and its plural is karasi, like bukhti and bakhati. There are two languages in it: damm of the kaf, which is the famous one, and kasra of it for following. The majority are upon the fath of the waw and the 'ayn and the kasra of the sin in (wasi'a), as a verb with kursi as its subject. It has been recited with the sakin of the sin with the kasra of the waw, like 'ilm in 'alim, and with the fath of the waw and the sakin of the sin and the rafa' of the 'ayn, while kursi is genitive and samawat is rafa'—it is then a subject added to what follows, and "the heavens and the earth" is its predicate.

(And it does not tire Him)—i.e., it does not weigh Him down, as Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—said. It is taken from al-awd meaning bending, because a heavy thing leans down what is beneath it. Its past tense is ada. The pronoun refers to Allah, the Exalted. It is said: It refers to the Kursi. (Preserving them)—i.e., the heavens and the earth. He did not explicitly mention "what is in them" because the preservation of them entails the preservation of what is in them. He singled them out for mention rather than the Kursi because their preservation is what is witnessed and sensed. The claim of ikhdam (employment) to include the Throne and others, which only Allah knows, is far-fetched.

(And He is the Most High)—i.e., the One exalted above likenesses, rivals, examples, and opposites, and above the signs of deficiency and the indications of contingency. It is said: It is from the 'uluw (height) that is in the sense of power, authority, destruction, exaltedness of rank, subduing, transcendence, majesty, and greatness.

(The Most Great) [Meaning] possessor of greatness; everything by comparison to Him is insignificant.

Since the brides of divine issues were unveiled on the platform of this noble verse, and the lights of the High Attributes shone on its pages—as it gathered the foundations of attributes of divinity, oneness, life, knowledge, dominion, power, and will—and it included seventeen places where the Name of Allah appears, explicitly in some and hidden in others, and it spoke that He—Glory be to Him—is Existent, Unique in His divinity, Living, Necessary of Existence by His Essence, One for others, transcendent from space and indwelling, free from change and lethargy, there is no similarity between Him and the shadows, and what affects souls and spirits does not dwell in the courtyard of His majesty, Owner of the Kingdom and the Dominion, Creator of origins and branches, Possessor of severe punishment, the One who alone knows the outward and hidden things, the general and the specific, Vast in dominion and power for everything that is capable of being owned and empowered, nothing is difficult for Him, nothing is heavy for Him, Exalted above everything that does not befit His presence, Great, the bird of thought cannot circle in the wilderness of attributes that reside in Him—He is unique with necklaces of grace from which the necks of their sisters, though excellent, are empty—and jewels of characteristics by which they are gifted between their peers, and not as they are gifted to Lubna and Su'ad.

Muslim, Ahmad, and others narrated from the Messenger of Allah—peace be upon him—that he said: "The greatest verse in the Quran is the Verse of the Kursi." Al-Bayhaqi narrated from the hadith of Anas, attributed to the Prophet: "Whoever recites the Verse of the Kursi after every obligatory prayer is preserved until the next prayer, and none preserves it except a prophet, a siddiq, or a martyr." Al-Daylami narrated from Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—that he said: "If you knew what is in it, you would not leave it under any condition, for the Messenger of Allah—peace be upon him—said: 'I was given the Verse of the Kursi from a treasure under the Throne; no prophet before me was given it.'" The reports regarding its excellence are many and famous, although some are such that they have no basis, like the report: "Whoever recites it, Allah the Exalted sends an angel who writes from his good deeds and erases from his evil deeds until the next day at that time." Some of it is very munkar (denied), like the report: "Allah the Exalted revealed to Musa—peace be upon him—that he should recite the Verse of the Kursi after every obligatory prayer, for whoever recites it after every obligatory prayer, I will make for him the heart of the grateful, the tongue of the rememberers, the reward of the penitent, and the deeds of the siddiqin."

It is not hidden that most of the hadiths in this chapter are an argument for those who say that some of the Quran may excel over others. There is a dispute in this, and some prevented it—like al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani, and others—because it entails the deficiency of the excelled-over, and there is no deficiency in the Speech of Allah the Exalted. They interpreted "greatest" as "great" and "most excellent" as "excellent." Ishaq ibn Rahwayh and many of the scholars and theologians permitted it, and it is the chosen view. It refers to the greatness of the reward of its reciter, and it is for Allah the Exalted to single out what He wills for what He wills.

The suitability of this noble verse to what preceded it is that when He—Glory be to Him—mentioned that the disbelievers are the oppressors, it was fitting for Him—Glory be to His Majesty—to alert them to the correct creed, which is pure monotheism, upon which the Messengers have walked, despite the difference of their degrees and the variation of their ranks, by what has ripened from that exercise and flowed its basins, and its preacher sang at its collar, and its speaker split open on the pulpits of clarity. So praise be to Allah for clarifying the argument and removing the dust from the face of the highway.

This is [the end of the section].

From the Chapter of Allusion in the Verses: (Those are the verses of Allah)—i.e., His secrets, lights, symbols, and allusions. We recite them to you with the tongue of revelation, cloaked in the fixed Truth which no change befalls. (And you are indeed among the Messengers) who have crossed these stations and for whom the purity of the times has become valid. (Those messengers, We have favored some over others) according to the requirement of the exaltation of the lights of their preparations. (Of them are those whom Allah spoke to) at the time of His manifestation on the Mount of his heart and in the valley of his secret. (And raised some of them in degrees) by his annihilation from the darkness of existence entirely, and his remaining in the presence of Divine lights, and his reaching the station of "two bows' length," and his obtaining the treasure of (So He revealed to His servant what He revealed) of the secrets of the two creations, until he returned and he is the Light of Lights and the Greatest Manifestation for those possessed of insight. (And We gave 'Isa, son of Maryam, the clear signs) and the dazzling verses of reviving the dead of hearts and informing of what is stored in the treasures of the secrets of the Unseen. (And We supported him with the Holy Spirit), which is the spirit of spirits, transcendent from cosmic deficiencies and sanctified from natural attributes. (And if Allah had willed, those who came after them would not have fought) with the swords of desire and the arrows of misguidance (after the clear signs came to them) of the lights of primordial nature and the guidance of the Messengers. (But they differed) according to what their eternal preparation required. (So of them were those who believed) in what the revelation brought, (and of them were those who disbelieved). (And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought) out of difference, by their preparation being united. (But Allah does what He wills), and He does not will except what is in [His] Knowledge, and there was nothing in it except this difference.

(O you who have believed, spend from what We have provided you) by the sacrifice of souls and the guidance of servants, before there comes the Day of the Great Resurrection, in which there is no trading, nor changing of an attribute for an attribute; thus, no completion of the creation is achieved, nor a friend for the emergence of truths, nor an intercessor for the manifestation of Majesty. (And the disbelievers are they who have oppressed their own souls) by the deficiency of their shares. (And We did not oppress them), for We did not decree for them except what their non-constituted preparation required.

(Allah, there is no god) in the scientific existence (but He, the Ever-Living), whose life is the very essence of His essence; and all that is living has not lived except by His life. (The Self-Sustaining, who) stands by Himself and sustains all that stands by Him. It is said: The Living, who clothed his life with the secrets of the monotheists, so they were unified by Him; and the Self-Sustaining, who nurtured with the manifestation of attributes and the unveiling of the Essence the spirits of the gnostics, so they annihilated in His Essence and burned with the light of His greatness.

(No slumber can seize Him nor sleep): a clarification of His Self-Sustaining nature and an allusion that His life is the very essence of His essence. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens of spirits and the earth of shadows. Thus, no mover moves, no stayer stays, and no thought crosses in land or sea, secret or manifest, except by His power, will, knowledge, and volition. (Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?) For they all belong to Him, are from Him, to Him, and by Him. (He knows what is before them) of thoughts (and what is behind them) of stumbles; or what is before them of stations and what is behind them of states; or He knows of them what was before their creation of the quantity of their preparation, and what is after their inception of action according to that. (And they encompass nothing of His knowledge) which are the manifestations of His Names (except what He wills) as is obtained for the people of hearts from the witnessing of the secrets of the Unseen. If understanding falls short of encompassing anything of His knowledge, what greed does it have for encompassing His essence? How far, how far! How can the bat of understanding open its eye to the sun of that Essence?

(His Kursi extends)—which is the heart of the gnostic—(over the heavens and the earth), because it is the mine of Divine sciences and the knowledge of ladunni (direct from Allah) which has no end and no limit. Hence, Abu Yazid al-Bistami said: "If the world and what is in it were to fall a thousand thousand times into a corner of the corners of the heart of the gnostic, he would not feel it." It is said: His Kursi is the world of the Dominion (malakut), and it is the place of circumambulation for the spirits of the gnostics for the majesty of the Omnipotence (jabarut). (And it does not tire Him)—it does not weigh Him down—(preserving them) in that Kursi, because they do not exist without Him. (And He is the Most High) in rank, whom the universes do not constrain, (the Most Great) whose greatness has no end, and the essence of His essence cannot be conceived due to His absoluteness, even from the constraint of absoluteness.