Al-Baqarah: 258

(Have you not seen the one who argued with Ibrahim about his Lord?) This is an explanation of the strengthening of the believers, as He is their Protector, and the forsaking of others. For this reason, it is not connected by a conjunction, and its clarification is emphasized because the deniers of His, the Almighty’s, protection of the believers are many. It is also said that it is a testimony to what was mentioned—that the protectors of the disbelievers are the Taghut (idols/tyrants)—and a confirmation of that, just as what follows it is a testimony to His, the Almighty’s, protection of the believers and a confirmation of it.

It was begun with this to maintain the connection between it and what it signifies, and because it stands alone with a wondrous affair worthy of being the opening of a discourse: his audacity in arguing concerning Allah, the Almighty, and the arrogance he brought forth in the process, which signals his complete folly. Furthermore, because what follows it contains an enumeration and detail that would have caused a dispersion of the structure had it been placed first. Moreover, it is indicated therein that His guidance, the Almighty’s, also exists through Ibrahim, peace and blessings be upon him; for what is narrated of him—inviting to the Truth and refuting the argument of the disbelievers—is among the effects of His, the Almighty’s, protection. The nature of this is not hidden. The interrogative hamza is for the denial of negation and the confirmation of the negated.

The majority hold that the speech carries the meaning of astonishment: "Have you not considered, or has your knowledge not reached, the story of this disbeliever—to whom you are not a protector—how he dared to argue with the One whose duty it is to grant you victory, and of whom I have informed you that I am a protector to him and to those who are his followers?" That is, the witnessing of this wondrous story has been realized and confirmed, based on the fact that the matter is of such clarity that it is hardly hidden from anyone who has a share of address. So, let your heart be in the utmost state of realization regarding what I have mentioned to you of My protection for the believers and its absence for the disbelievers. Be at ease, O beloved, and receive glad tidings of victory, for I have supported the Khalil (Ibrahim)—and where is the rank of the Khalil compared to the Habib (Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him)?—and I have forsaken the head of the transgressors, so how much more the vile followers?

The one referred to by the relative pronoun is Nimrod, son of Canaan, son of Sinjarib; he is the first to act arrogantly and claim lordship, as he and others have stated. The term "argument" (muhajjah) was used for what occurred, even if it was a disputation based on falsehood, in order to present it in its appropriate context. There is disagreement regarding its timing: it is said it was at the time of breaking the idols and before he was cast into the fire—this is what is narrated from Muqatil. It is also said it was after he was cast into the fire and He made it cool and peaceful for him—this is what is narrated from Ja’far al-Sadiq, may Allah, the Almighty, be pleased with him.

In opting for the title of "Lordship" while attributing it to His, the Almighty’s, pronoun (in the context of "his Lord") is an honoring of him and a signaling from the beginning of the support of his Protector for him in the argument, for nurturing is a type of protection. (That Allah gave him the kingdom)—that is, because Allah, the Almighty, gave him that; the speech is on the basis of the omission of the lam (the reason), which is consistent with "that" (anna) and "if" (in). There is no "accusative of cause" (maf’ul li-ajlih) here because the agents are not identical.

The causality here is on two faces: either that the giving of the kingdom is the cause of that because it bequeathed him pride and insolence, from which the argument arose; or it is a matter of reversal in speech, in the sense that he placed the argument in the position of gratitude, as it was his duty to be grateful for that. On the first, the cause is investigative, and on the second, it is sarcastic, as when you say, "So-and-so showed enmity toward me because I did good to him."

It is permitted that "that Allah gave him..." stands in the position of an adverb of time without an implicit noun, or with an implicit "time of," i.e., "He argued at the time when Allah gave him the kingdom." It was objected that the argument did not take place at the time of the giving of the kingdom, but rather the giving preceded it, and because grammarians stipulated that nothing stands in the place of a temporal adverb except a verbal noun (masdar sarih) with a word, such as "I came at the rising of the star and the crowing of the cock," and it is not permissible to say "that it rose" or "when it crowed." It was answered by considering the time to be extended, and that the text is contradicted by the fact that they stipulated that the masdariyyah "what" (ma) acts as a substitute for time, even though it is not a masdar sarih. This was permitted by Ibn Jinni and Al-Saffar in the explanation of the book. The truth is that a causality that is possible and agreed upon, free from what is said against it, should not be turned away from, especially since the implication of the added noun, along with the assertion of the extension and adherence to the statement of Ibn Jinni and Al-Saffar—despite its opposition to the speech of the majority—is the peak of strained interpretation.

The verse is an argument against those who forbid Allah’s giving of the kingdom to a disbeliever and interpret it as Allah, the Almighty, giving him what he gained power with, such as wealth, servants, and followers, or that Allah, the Almighty, gave him the kingdom as a trial for His servants, as the preventer who says there is an obligation to observe what is "most appropriate" (al-aslah) did. This is nothing; for anyone who has a grain of fairness knows that there is no meaning to "giving the kingdom and power" except the giving of the means. Even if conceded, the question still applies to the giving of the means. And if conceded, there is no evil except that a correct purpose, such as testing, can be considered in it. Because of the strength of this objection, some have committed themselves to making the pronoun in "gave him" refer to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, because He, the Almighty, said: (My covenant does not include the wrongdoers) and He, the Almighty, said: (We gave the family of Ibrahim the Book and Wisdom, and We gave them a great kingdom). This is what is narrated from Abu Qasim al-Balkhi. It is not hidden that this is contrary to what is suggested to the mind and contrary to the interpretation transmitted from the righteous predecessors. Reality also denies this, as Ibrahim, peace be upon him, at that time had no kingdom, nor authority, nor influence.

Some of the Imamiyyah went to the view that the kingdom which Allah does not give to a disbeliever is that which is by way of establishing command and prohibition and making obedience obligatory upon the creation. As for that which is by way of conquest, abundance of wealth, and influence of word by force—like the kingdom of Nimrod—this is something that should not be a matter of dispute. The statement that this rebel was given the kingdom in the first sense is outside of fairness; rather, the one who was truly given that was Ibrahim, peace and blessings be upon him, except that he was opposed in his kingdom and was overpowered regarding what Allah, the Almighty, had gifted him, until Allah, the Almighty, decreed what He decreed, and those who have passed have passed. Falsehood has its turn, then it vanishes. This is speech that is as close to the truth as can be, but I smell the scent of deviation from it, and it seems to me that it is an allusion to the Companions, and Allah, the Almighty, knows the treachery of the eyes and what the chests conceal. The shift from pronominalization to explication in this position has that which is not hidden.

(When Ibrahim said) is an adverb for "argued." It is permitted to be a substitute for "gave him" based on the statement you know. Abu Hayyan objected to this by saying that the two adverbs are different, since the time of his being given the kingdom is not the time of Ibrahim, peace be upon him, (My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death). For he, according to what is narrated, said it when he was imprisoned for breaking the idols, following Nimrod’s statement to him—after he had been given the kingdom—"Who is your Lord whom you invite to?" Al-Safaqsi answered by using the figurative sense in "gave him" and not intending the beginning of the giving, but the duration of the kingdom, which is extended and can accommodate two statements, or even more. Abu al-Baqa also objected that the verbal noun is not the adverb, so if it were a substitute, it would be a mistake, unless "when" (id) is made to mean the masdariyyah "that" (an); this has indeed occurred. Al-Halabi said: "This is based on his assumption that 'that' (an) is an 'accusative of cause' and is not standing in the place of an adverb. However, if it were standing in its place, it would not be a 'substitute of mistake' but a 'substitute of total for total'." It has what was mentioned before. It is said it is permitted to be a substitute of inclusion (badl ishtimal) for "gave him."

Some have found difficulty in all of that regarding the position of His, the Almighty’s, saying: (He said: "I give life and cause death") unless it is made an initiation to an answer to a question, and making it equivalent to what is seen denies that. From here it is said that the adverb is related to His, the Almighty’s, saying: (He said: "I...") etc., and the question is implied before "when he said," as if it were said: "How did Ibrahim argue?" and he was answered by what he was answered with. It is not hidden that the denial remains the same. Thus, it is better to say from the beginning that this statement is an explanation of His, the Almighty’s, statement: "argued."

"My Lord" (Rabbi), with the fatha on the ya, and it has been recited with its omission. He, peace be upon him, meant "He who gives life and causes death" is the creator of life and death in the bodies. The cursed one meant other than that; it is narrated of him that he brought two men, killed one, and left the other, and said what he said. Since this was far removed from the intended meaning and its falsity was of such clarity and obviousness that it is not hidden from anyone, and addressing the refutation of such is of the category of striving to achieve the achieved, the Khalil, peace and blessings be upon him, turned away from refuting it and brought another proof clearer than the sun:

(Ibrahim said: "For Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west.") Therein is evidence for the permissibility of the disputant moving from one argument to another that is clearer than it, a matter of dispute. Carrying this upon this is one of two famous paths in the verse. The second is that the transition is only in the example, as if he said: "My Lord is the One who brings into existence the possibles and causes them to cease to exist," and he brought life and death as an example. When he objected, he came with a clearer example to repel the obfuscation.

The Imam said: "The difficulty with both is from several angles: First, when the author of the suspicion mentions the suspicion and that suspicion falls into the ears, it is incumbent upon the person of truth who is capable of mentioning the answer to mention it immediately, removing deception and ignorance from the minds. So, when the rebel attacked the proof or the first example with that suspicion, busying oneself with removing it became an urgent necessity. How, then, is it fitting for the infallible one to leave it and transition to something else? Second, when the invalidator brings that question, the person of truth’s abandoning the speech upon it and the warning of its weakness results in the falling of the Prophet’s prestige and the pettiness of his affair, which is not permissible. Third, although it is a transition from one proof to another or from one example to another, the one transitioned to must be clearer and closer, and here it is not so; because the genus of life is something the creation has no power over, while the genus of moving bodies is something the creation has power over. Thus, it is not impossible for there to exist a king with a great body who is a mover of the heavens. On this basis, the inference by death and life is clearer and stronger than the inference by the rising of the sun. How, then, is it fitting for the infallible Prophet to transition from the clearer proof to the hidden proof? Fourth, when the rebel did not feel ashamed to oppose the life and death issued from Allah, the Almighty, by killing and sparing, how can one be secure from him, when transitioning to the rising of the sun, saying: 'Rather, the rising of the sun from the east is from me; if you have a god, tell him to bring it from the west'? At that time, the researchers committed to the view that if he had brought this question, it would have been an obligation to bring it from the west. It is known that busying oneself with showing the corruption of his question regarding life and death is much easier than committing to this bringing. Furthermore, by the estimation that the rising of the sun from the west occurs, the proof for the existence of the Maker is this rising, not the first rising; at that point, the first becomes lost, just as the first became lost as well. Also, what compelled the Khalil, peace upon him, to abandon the answer to that feeble question and hold fast to a proof that cannot be carried through except by committing to the bringing of the sun from the west, and by that estimation, the second proof is lost, just as the first was? It is known that committing to these prohibitions does not befit the least of people in knowledge, let alone the best of scholars and most knowledgeable of the elite."

The truth is that this is not another proof nor an example; rather, it is from the completion of the first proof. It is that when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, argued with death and life, the opponent brought against him a question: "If you claim life and death without an intermediary, you will find no way to prove it; and if you claim they occur via the movements of the celestial spheres, then a counterpart or something close to it is obtained by humans." The Khalil, peace upon him, answered that life and death, even if they occur via the movements of the spheres, those movements were obtained from Allah, the Almighty, and that does not detract from life and death being from Him; unlike the creation, for they have no power to move the spheres, so necessarily, life and death are not issued from them. When you carry the verse upon this perspective, none of the prohibitions apply to it.

The nature of this is not hidden. Firstly, because if the suspicion is at the peak of flimsiness and end of falsity such that its state is hardly hidden and does not deceive anyone, it is not prevented to turn away from it to what is far from deception to repel the obfuscation and obtain the intended goal without much effort, and that does not result in the falling of prestige or pettiness of affair. What deception could possibly result from this suspicion for the minds such that busying oneself with removing it is an urgent necessity, the neglect of which would fault the infallible? Besides, it is narrated that he did not transition until he had shown the rebel the corruption of his statement, as he said to him: "You gave life to the living and did not give life to the dead." And from Al-Sadiq, may Allah, the Almighty, be pleased with him, that he said to him: "Give life to one whom you killed if you are truthful." But Allah, the Almighty, did not tell us of that requirement in the Book, contenting Himself with the extreme obviousness of the corruption.

As for secondly, because it is clear that what is transitioned to is clearer in the intended meaning than what is transitioned from, and saying the opposite is almost a denial of the obvious. What he mentioned in the context of the proof is not hidden. As for thirdly, because what he mentioned fourthly also strikes the face he chose, since the rebel is not secure from saying: "If the movements of the spheres are from your Lord, tell Him to bring it from the west." What is the answer here is the same answer. They answered the lack of that cursed one saying it by saying that the argument was after his salvation from the fire, so it was known that whoever is capable of that is capable of bringing the sun from the west, so he remained silent; or that Allah, the Almighty, made him forget it as a support for His Prophet, peace upon him—this is weak. Rather, the answer is that he, peace be upon him, argued that there must be for the specific movement and the one moved by it a mover, because the need of the moved in movement to the mover is self-evident, and it is self-evident that it is not Nimrod. So he said: "This is my Lord, so if you claim that you are the one who does it, then bring it from the west." This does not face a question in any way, for if he claimed that the movement is by itself, even though it is preceded by another, even if by a single movement, he would be denying the self-evident. If he claimed he is the actor despite the obviousness of its impossibility, he would be forced to change from that state. So, there must be a confession of an actor who brings it from the east, and the claim is that this actor is the Lord.

As for fourthly, because what he chose is not indicated by the noble verse in any way, and there is nothing in the disbeliever’s speech except his claim of giving life and causing death, and no discussion of the movements of the spheres was sensed from it, nor was any trace found for him to claim that those movements are also from Allah, the Almighty, so their intervention does not detract from life and death being from Him, the Almighty’s, state. I do not think you are in doubt of this. Perhaps the most apparent of what the Imam went to is what some researchers mentioned: that when the rebel was one who permitted the plurality of gods, he was not claiming to be the god of the world—if he claimed it, he would be insane according to a method like that of the Sabeans, that Allah, the Almighty, delegated to the stars the management and actions, and the existence and other things are attributed to them. So he permitted that there might also be someone on earth to whom it is delegated, either by the statement of indwelling or through celestial qualities or otherwise. Ibrahim, peace be upon him, wanted to alert him to his inadequacy for this rank and the corruption of his opinion from the side of his necessary knowledge that he is a created being, brought into existence after he was not, and that whoever has no existence in himself cannot possibly bring into existence, which is the pouring forth of existence, necessarily due to his need for the Creator, initially and continuously. This is sufficient in refuting the claim of the cursed one. He did not generalize the claim in His, the Almighty’s, uniqueness in divinity.

Moreover, it was revealed to him that there is no difference between bringing into existence and causing to cease to exist, as two types are life and death, and the One capable of bringing into existence every possible and causing it to cease requires that He be outside the possibles, One in all respects, because multiplicity necessitates possibility and need, as it was proven in its place. The rebel opposed him with what he imagined as permissible: that the possible could be—due to its lack of need for an agent in remaining, as some of the shortsighted theologians believe—delegated to it after its bringing into existence what is independent in bringing another into existence and managing another. This has been hidden from the clever, let alone the stupid. He said: "I give life and cause death" and showed that, signaling that duration has the ruling of initiation in the aspect of giving life, and he is contradictory to himself in that without realizing it. For if it were so, the management would not be delegated to other than the Creator, and he would not be independent of the Creator for a blink of an eye. Otherwise, pardon is not giving life, if it is conceded that killing is causing death. The Khalil, peace upon him, forced him with the fact that for the capable one, there is no difference relative to him between duration and initiation, so "Allah brings the sun from the east, so you bring it from the west," alerting him to the aforementioned contradiction, stating clearly that he is mistaken in attributing the action continuously to other than what he attributed it to initially, revealing to the listeners what might have been hidden from some. This is speech that is directed at rhetoric and proof; whoever is addressed by it receives it, willingly or unwillingly, with acknowledgment. In it, there is no room for objection; it is sound from refutation. Thus, the whole is one proof, and it is not a transition to another proof—due to the argument about it—nor a turning to a clearer example until it is said: "It is as if he said: 'My Lord is the one who brings into existence the possibles and brought life and death as an example, and when he objected, he came with a clearer one to repel the obfuscation'." Because with the fact that it has what the first has, it is also objected against that the speech was not led in this path, as is not hidden. This is it, and Allah, the Almighty, knows the truths of His glorious Book. So contemplate.

He brought the noble Name in the second clause and did not bring it by the title of "Lordship" as he brought it in the first clause—by saying "My Lord"—so that it would be in contrast to "I" in that statement, along with what it contains of the indication of His, the Almighty’s, Lordship over him, peace upon him, and over that rebel, may the curse be upon him. In it is an elevation from what is in that clause, like the elevation from the earth to the sky. It is in this position a good confirmation by "inn" (innallaha), and the imperative is for incapacity. The first "fa" is to signal the connection of what follows it to what preceded it. The meaning is: "If you claimed life and death for Allah, the Almighty, and you were mistaken in understanding or you deceived, then the reliever of distress and remover of confusion and difficulty is that Allah brings the sun..." etc. The ba is for transition, and "min" in the two places is for the beginning of the limit, related to what preceded it of the verb. It is said it is related to an implicit word that became an adjective, i.e., "subjugated" or "compliant."

(So the one who disbelieved was dumbfounded), i.e., overcome and became dumbfounded, cut off from speech, and bewildered due to the conquest of the argument over him. It was recited "buhta" with the fatha of the ba and the damma of the ha, and "buhta" with the fatha of the first and the kasra of the second; they are two dialects, and the verb in them is intransitive. And "bahata" with both as fathas, so it is possible that it is also intransitive, and "the one" is its subject, or it could be transitive and its subject is the pronoun of Ibrahim and "the one" is its object, i.e., Ibrahim, peace be upon him, overcame the disbeliever and silenced him. The bringing of "disbelief" into the relative clause is to signal the cause of the judgment. Al-Kiya said: "In the verse is evidence for the permissibility of arguing in religion, even if the argument of this disbeliever was disbelief."

(And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people), i.e., to the paths of truth as He guided His protectors. It is also said: He does not guide them to the way of Paradise on the Day of Resurrection.