Tafsir of Al-Anbiya' 21:8

“And We did not make them bodies...”

This is an explanation of the fact that the Messengers (peace be upon them) were an example for all other members of the human race in the laws of human nature.

Al-Jasad (the body), according to the Qamus, is the physical frame of humans, jinn, and angels. Al-Raghib said: It is like al-jism (the body/corporeal entity), yet more specific than it. Al-Khalil said: Al-jasad is not applied to anything other than humans among the creatures of the earth and the like. Furthermore, al-jasad is applied to that which has color, while al-jism is applied to that which does not have a distinct color, such as air and water. The saying of the Exalted, “And We did not make them bodies,” bears witness to what Al-Khalil stated.

It has been said: It is a body possessing structure. Its apparent meaning is that it is more general than “animal,” though some have restricted it to that. Others have said: It is originally a verbal noun (masdar) from jasada ad-damu yajsudu, meaning “it adhered/coagulated.” It was applied to a compound body because it is something with parts adhering to one another. Furthermore, it is apparent that he who claims its restriction such that it does not include non-rational animals, for instance, is making the ultimate claim based on the root of its linguistic derivation; he does not deny the permissibility of generalizing it after that, so do not be heedless.

Its accusative case—if it is a second object for “We made”—implies the intent of rendering them as such from the start, following the idiom: “Glory be to Him who made the mosquito small and the elephant large.” Alternatively, it is a state (hal) of the pronoun, and the “making” is an act of origination. Its being singular is not due to the “genus” encompassing a multitude, but rather because it is, in origin, a verbal noun (as you have heard), and it is applied to the singular masculine and others. It is said: It is for the sake of individualizing the totality within the pronoun; meaning: “We made each one of them.” It is also said: It is with an implied addition, meaning “possessors of bodies.” In at-Tashil, it is stated that the dual and plural of the attached noun (the object) may be dispensed with by the dual and plural of the noun to which it is attached in proper nouns, and similarly in generic names where there is no confusion.

And His saying: “...who do not eat food...” is an attribute of “bodies”; meaning: “And We did not make them bodies independent of nourishment, but rather in need of it.”

“...and they were not immortal.”

Meaning: remaining forever. It has been permitted that immortality means “prolonged dwelling,” but the former is chosen because the clause confirms what preceded it: that the past Messengers (peace be upon them) were humans, not angels, as required by the false beliefs and corrupt assumptions of the polytheists. It is apparent that they also believed in the eternity of the angels (peace be upon them), just as the philosophers believe that regarding them, except that they term them “abstract intellects.”

The essence of the meaning is: We made them bodies that require nourishment and are destined for death in the end according to their appointed terms; We did not make them angels who do not eat and do not die, as you assume. It is said: The clause is a refutation of their saying, “What is with this Messenger that he eats food?” and the former is better. Indeed, while it confirms what preceded it, it also acts as a refutation of that claim.

The preference for “and they were not” over “and We did not make them” serves as an alert that the lack of immortality and permanence is a corollary of their nature in this existence, which is pointed to by His saying, “And We did not make them bodies...,” rather than by an inaugural act of “making.”

Indeed, when you look at all composites made of opposing elements, you see their remaining for even a short time as a strange matter, and you rise to seek the cause for that. From here it was said: “Do not follow the past with your question: ‘Why did it pass?’ and turn to the remaining and ask it: ‘Why did it remain?’”

Nay, it is not far-fetched that possible beings are, absolutely, of this nature. For they have said: “The possible being, if left to its essence, would be non-existent, since non-existence does not require a cause or an effect, unlike existence.” It does not follow from this that non-existence is a requirement of the essence such that it would become impossible, for the root of that lies in the priority of non-existence and its appropriateness regarding the essence. This is pointed to—according to what has been said—by the saying of Abu Ali regarding the Hay’at (modalities) in Ash-Shifa: “For that which is known in itself to be ‘not,’ it has from its cause to be ‘is.’”

Their saying that the two extremes of the possible being are equal regarding its essence means that they are equal in the lack of necessity for either of them regarding its essence. Their saying “the cause of non-existence is the lack of the cause of existence” means that non-existence does not require an effect or an act of “making”; rather, the absence of the cause is sufficient for it—not that the absence of the cause is an active agent in the non-existence of the caused. Perhaps in the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), “What Allah has willed occurred, and what He has not willed has not occurred,” is an indication of this. So contemplate it.