The Ant: (65) "Say: None knows..."

(Say: None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah). After establishing His uniqueness, Exalted is He, in Divinity by clarifying His exclusive possession of complete and perfect power and all-encompassing, general mercy, He followed it by mentioning that which is inseparable from Him: His exclusivity in the knowledge of the unseen. This completes what preceded it and paves the way for what follows regarding the matter of resurrection.

In Al-Bahr, it is said: The disbelievers asked the Messenger, peace be upon him, about the time of the Resurrection they were promised, and they persisted with him—peace and blessings be upon him—so this verse was revealed: (Say: None knows...). Its appropriateness—based on this context—to what preceded it, namely His saying: (Or who originates the creation and then repeats it?), is of the utmost perfection.

The apparent meaning that immediately comes to mind is that man (who/those) is the subject of ya‘lam (knows), and it is a relative noun (mawsul) or a described noun (mawsuf), with al-ghayb (the unseen) as its object. The Majestic Name (Allah) is in the nominative case as a substitution (badal) for man.

The exception (istithna’), according to what has been said, is "disjoined" (munqati‘) in reality, but "joined" (muttasil) by interpretation, similar to the line of the rajaz poet: And a land that has no companion except the wild cows and the camels. This is based on including the wild cows within the category of "companions" through a form of interpretation. Thus, it signifies the exaggeration of negating the knowledge of the unseen from those in the heavens and the earth by suspending their knowledge of it upon that which is clearly impossible—namely, that He, the Exalted, is one of them. It is as if it were said: "If Allah, the Exalted, were among those in them, then there would be among them one who knows the unseen." Meaning, the impossibility of their knowledge of the unseen is like the impossibility of Allah, the Exalted, being one of them. Similar to this, where there is no exception, is the saying: A greeting between them, a painful blow.

It is also said: It is disjoined in the manner of the exception in the saying: An evening where the spears and the arrows avail not their place, except the sharp, decisive Musharifi blade. Meaning that it is an instance of following one of two contraries with the other, like: "Zayd did not come to me, except ‘Amr," and "Your brothers did not help him, except his brothers." Sibawayh mentioned both of these, and Ibn Malik mentioned that the original structure in both is: "No one came to me except ‘Amr," and "No one helped him except his brothers." He substituted a part of its meaning—namely Zayd and your brothers—in place of "no one," even though the intruders were not mentioned among those from whom coming and helping were negated; rather, they were mentioned to emphasize their share of the negation, to push away the illusion of the interlocutor that the speaker did not consider the one he emphasized. Thus, he mentioned the emphasis.

Accordingly, the original in the verse would be: "No one knows the unseen except Allah." Then "one" was omitted, and a part of its meaning was put in its place—namely "those in the heavens and the earth"—and the other part is those who are not in them. It suffices for it to be a part of its meaning that it is true of it; its existence in the external world is not required. Scholars have stated that some universals have parts whose existence in the external world is impossible, or all of them are. Moreover, among the theologians are those who claim the existence of something other than Allah—Mighty and Majestic is He—that is neither in the heavens nor the earth, which is the "Command Spirit" (al-ruh al-amriyyah), for it has no place according to them, similar to the "abstract intellects" according to the philosophers.

He (Ibn Malik) said: The condition for following (al-atba‘) in this type is that the omission of the excepted-from (mustathna minh) and relying on the excepted (mustathna) must be sound. If this condition is not met, the accusative case (nasb) becomes mandatory according to the Tamimi and Hijazi schools, as in the Quranic verse... [The exception of the disjoined is the preference of the rational over the irrational]. It is required that it be specified to "one" and its likes, but this is corrupt, as Ibn Kharuf said, because what is substituted in this category is more numerous than can be counted.

Al-Zamakhshari’s discussion gives the impression at its beginning that the exception here is of the type mentioned by Sibawayh in the two examples, and in the verse we mentioned before them. His conclusion implies that it is of the type of the exception in the aforementioned rajaz line, and that the motive for choosing the Tamimi school is the nuance of hyperbole you have heard. They have explicitly stated that the achievement of that nuance only occurs when the exception is made disjoined in reality and joined by interpretation.

Perhaps the truth is that if it is intended to signify the strength of the negation, it is mandatory to make the exception like the exception in the saying: "And a land...", etc. And if it is intended to signify the generality of the negation, it is mandatory to make it like the exception in their saying: "Your brothers did not help him except his brothers." So reflect.

It is also permitted that it be "joined" (muttasil), as is the default in exceptions, on the basis that those meant by "those in the heavens and the earth" are those who are acquainted with them as a present observer, as a figurative expression (majaz mursal) or metaphor. In any case, it is a general figurative meaning for Him, the Exalted, and for those among His creation who possess knowledge. This is the way out of the necessity of committing to a combination of literal and figurative meanings, which is disputed regarding its validity, as some of those who claim it is "joined" have done.

It is also said: The prepositional phrase is suspended—on that assumption—to a verb like "is mentioned" from among the verbs attributed in reality to Allah, the Exalted, and to creatures, not like "resided" (istaqarra), which cannot be attributed to Him, Glory be to Him, in reality. That is: "None who is mentioned in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah." It is also permitted to suspend it to "resided" (istaqarra), except that it is made predicative to a deleted possessor (mudaf) and the possessor-of-the-addition (mudaf ilayh) is placed in its stead. That is: "None whose mention resides in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah." So the verb and the possessor were omitted, and the pronoun is hidden because it is in the nominative case. This—and what preceded it—is as you see.

The discussion of "joined" was challenged on the grounds that it necessitates equality between Him, the Exalted, and others in the use of a single expression, which is a blameworthy matter. Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Al-Nasa'i narrated from ‘Adi ibn Hatim that a man preached before the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and said: "Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever disobeys them both has erred." The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "You are a bad preacher for your people. Say: 'Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger'."

The answer given is that such is blameworthy when it proceeds from a human, but when it proceeds from Him, the Exalted, it is not blameworthy. Moreover, the claim that it is absolutely blameworthy when it proceeds from a human is denied. Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, and Al-Nasa'i narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "There are three things, whoever possesses them finds the sweetness of faith: that Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger are more beloved to him than anything else..."

Perhaps the intent of blame and praise is the inclusion or absence of a subtle nuance. It has been said regarding the hadith of Anas: The nuance in the dual pronoun is the allusion that what is considered is the composite whole of the two loves. The nuance in the singularity in the hadith of ‘Adi is to indicate that each of the two acts of disobedience is independently sufficient to necessitate error. The discussion on this topic has already passed, so remember it.

It is also permitted to parse man as the object of ya‘lam (knows), and al-ghayb (the unseen) as a substitution of inclusion (badal ishtimal) for it, and the Majestic Name (Allah) as the subject of ya‘lam. It becomes an "empty" exception (istithna’ mufarragh), meaning: "None knows the unseen of those in the heavens and the earth except Allah." It is not hidden that this is far-fetched.

Al-Ghayb (the unseen), originally, is when the sun and other things disappear when they are hidden from the eye. It is used for the absent thing for which no indicator is set up. This is "unseen" only in relation to people and their likes, not in relation to Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He, for nothing is absent from Him, the Exalted. However, it is not permitted to say: "He, Glorified and Exalted be He, does not know the unseen," intending thereby that there is no "unseen" in relation to Him, so that one might say "He knows it." The Shaykh Al-Faruqi Al-Sirhindi, known as the Imam Rabbani, attacked in his letters those who said that while intending what was mentioned with the utmost criticism, as is his habit—may Allah reward him with goodness regarding those who do not adhere to the etiquettes of the radiant Sharia.

The apparent meaning is the generality of the unseen. It is said: The intent is the Hour. It is said: It is what the people of the heavens and the earth conceal in their hearts. It is said: It is the genus of the unseen. From the negation of the knowledge of the genus of the unseen from other than Him, Mighty and Majestic is He, follows the negation of the knowledge of every individual member of that genus from that other. It does not harm that the verse does not then indicate the proof of the knowledge of every unseen for Him, Mighty and Majestic is He; rather, the furthest it indicates is the proof of the knowledge of the genus of the unseen for Him, Glorified be He, because it is what is explicitly negated from the excepted-from. And it does not follow from the proof of the knowledge of this genus that every individual member of it is known, for the verse was not set forth to provide evidence for that. How many rational and transmitted evidences point to it!

This was countered by the fact that the unseen, insofar as it is unseen, does not differ. Once the knowledge of some of its members is proven, the knowledge of all of them is proven, to repel the necessity of "preferring without a preferer." So ponder this.

Some preferred the "totality" (istighraq), meaning: "None in the heavens and the earth knows every unseen except Allah," for He, Glorified be He, knows every unseen, as it is more consistent with the context. It was countered that it would follow that there are some among the people of the heavens and the earth who know some of the unseen, and the apparent speech of many of the eminent scholars refuses this. This is supported by what the two Sheikhs, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, Ahmad, and a group of hadith scholars narrated from the hadith of Masruq from ‘Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that she said: "Whoever claims that Muhammad, peace be upon him, informs people about what will happen tomorrow—and in some narrations, 'knows what is in tomorrow'—has fabricated the greatest lie against Allah, the Exalted, while Allah says: (Say: None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah)."

Some permitted that among them are those who know some of the unseen. In Bayan Qawati' al-Islam, authored by the scholar Ibn Hajar, after refuting one who labeled as an unbeliever someone who was asked, "Do you know the unseen?" and replied, "Yes"—because in what he said is a denial of the text, which is His saying, the Exalted: (And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him), and His saying: (Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen to anyone, except to whom He has approved of messengers)—it states: "In any case, it is permissible for the khawas (the elite/saints) to know the unseen in a case or cases, as happened to many of them and became famous. What is exclusive to Him, the Exalted, is the knowledge of everything and the knowledge of the 'keys of the unseen' referred to in His saying: (And with Him are the keys of the unseen)..."

The conclusion of this exposition is that one who claims the knowledge of the unseen in a case or cases does not disbelieve—this is the subject of what is in Al-Rawdah. One who claims its knowledge in all other cases disbelieves—this is the subject of what is in its origin (Asl). Except that, since his expression was absolute, covering this and other than it, it was permissible for Al-Nawawi to object to him. If it is absolute and he did not intend anything, then the most appropriate is what Al-Nawawi’s speech implied: the absence of disbelief.

Perhaps the truth is to say: The knowledge of the unseen negated from other than Him, Glorified and Exalted is He, is that which belongs to a person by his essence—that is, without an intermediary in its establishment for him. This is something that is inconceivable for anyone among the people of the heavens and the earth because of the possibility (imkan) in them, in essence and attribute. This refuses the establishment of anything for them without an intermediary. Perhaps in expressing the excepted-from as "those in the heavens and the earth" is a pointing to the cause of the ruling. What happens to the khawas is not from this negated knowledge in any way, necessarily because it is from the Required-to-Exist, Exalted is He, who pours it upon them through one of the modes of outpouring (ifadah). Thus, it is not said: "They knew the unseen" in that sense—and whoever says that disbelieves absolutely. Rather, it is said: "They were made to manifest" or "they were informed"—passive voice—"of the unseen," or something similar that implies the intermediary in the establishment of knowledge for them.

This is supported by the fact that it did not come in the Holy Quran at all the attribution of the knowledge of the unseen to other than Him, the Exalted. And the "manifesting of the unseen" came for those whom He, the Exalted, approved of as messengers. It should not be said: "It is permitted on this basis to say: 'So-and-so was made to know the unseen'—also in the passive voice—meaning that Allah, the Exalted, informed him and introduced him through one of the ways of notification and introduction." And whenever this is permitted, it is permitted to say: "So-and-so knew the unseen," with the intent of attributing his knowledge—which resulted from His informing—to him.

To this we say: There is no dispute in the permissibility of "he was made to know" in the passive voice; the dispute is only in your saying: "And whenever this is permitted, it is permitted to say..." We say: If "permissibility" in the consequent of the conditional is intended as "permissibility in meaning"—that is, correctness from the perspective of meaning—then it is granted. However, not everything that is permitted in meaning is permitted to be used according to the Law (Shar‘). And if it is intended as "permissibility according to the Law," in the sense of the absence of a prohibition on its use, then it is denied, because of the ambiguity and contradiction to the literal meaning of the verses, such as the verse: (Say: None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah), and others.

You have heard about the Imam Rabbani—may his luminous secret be sanctified—that he attacked with all his might those who said "Allah, the Exalted, does not know the unseen," interpreting it as what was mentioned before, because of the contradiction to the Quranic texts and others. There is in that a lack of proper etiquette. They also attacked those who said: "I hate the truth, and I love discord, and I flee from mercy," intending by the "truth" death, by "discord" wealth or children, and by "mercy" rain, because of the repulsiveness and ugliness in its literal meaning that is not hidden. Indeed, the speaker of that does not disbelieve with that intent, but he is subject to discretionary punishment (ta‘zir) so that he does not return to his speech.

Furthermore, the knowledge of other than the unseen, from the sensible and intelligible things, even if it is not established for any of the possibles without an intermediary in its establishment, yet in its attribution to other than Him, Glorified be He, it is not forbidden. Rather, it is explicitly stated in places too numerous to count in its attribution to other than Him, the Exalted. If there had come regarding it what came regarding the knowledge of the unseen, it would have been required for it what was required for that.

On what has been established, the knowledge of the intellects regarding what has not yet happened from the events—according to what the philosophers claim—is not the knowledge of the unseen. Rather, it is, if granted, knowledge obtained from the Absolute Giver, Glorified be He, through one of the ways that Wisdom necessitates. Thus, it should not be said of them: "They are knowers of the unseen." Whoever says it is either an unbeliever or a sinful Muslim. And likewise is said regarding the knowledge of some of the ascetic Muslims, the Sufis, and the pagan Yogis, for everything that they obtain from that is only through the way of outpouring (fayd). Its ranks and states are uncountable, and the qualification for it may be innate and may be acquired. The ways of acquiring it are branching, and they can hardly be exhausted. The pouring of that upon the pagan ascetics, even if it resembles its pouring upon the believing pious, there is a great difference between the two matters according to the verifiers. Some Sufis mentioned that there is no "truth" except that a "falsehood" has been made for it that resembles it, because the world is a house of trial, and most of what is in it is an ordeal.

Attached to the knowledge of the Yogis' ascetics is the knowledge of some of the Sufis who are attributed to Islam, who neglect most of the mandatory rulings upon them, and are immersed in committing forbidden acts in their days and nights. So it is not appropriate to believe that this is a karamah (miracle); rather, it is a misfortune and a regret.

As for the astrologer's knowledge of cosmic events according to what he claims, it is not of this category, because those events that he informs about are not of the "unseen" in the sense we have mentioned. For although they are absent, they are, according to his claim, things for which an indicator has been set up from the astronomical positions and stellar relations—from conjunction, trine, sextile, opposition, and so on. His knowledge through the indication of the signs he claims is derived from experience and what the natures of the stars and the constellations necessitate, which he claims is shown by the variation of effects in the world of generation and corruption. So I see the knowledge of them only as the knowledge of a skilled doctor who, if he sees a bilious person, for example, knows the rank of his temperament and confirms it, eats a specific amount of honey, and knows that after an hour or two he will suffer such-and-such pain.

Attributing "knowledge of the unseen" to that has in it what it has. If you refuse except to name that "unseen," then the knowledge of it, for being through the intermediary of causes, is like our knowledge of Allah, the Exalted, and His Exalted Attributes, and our knowledge of Paradise and Hell, and so on. Moreover, if you are fair, you will know that what is with the astrologer and his ilk is not true knowledge; rather, it is conjecture and estimation built upon what is weaker than a spider’s web, as we will verify that with what has no addition in its proper place, if Allah, the Exalted, wills.

The strongest thing he has is the knowledge of the times of eclipses and the times of the realization of specific relations between the stars. And they are derived from knowing the magnitudes of the motions of the stars and the total and partial spheres, which are sensible things perceived by observations and instruments made for that.

In short, the knowledge of the unseen without an intermediary, whether totally or partially, is exclusive to Allah, Mighty and Majestic is He. None of the creation knows it at all. Whenever the negation of the intermediary is considered in it entirely, it is mandatory that it be from the requirements of the Essence. Thus, no difference is realized in it between one unseen and another. So there is no harm in carrying the al (definite article) in al-ghayb (the unseen) upon the genus. And whenever it is carried upon the totality (istighraq), the fitting thing is not to consider the negation of generality in the verse, but rather to consider the "generality of the negation," and to maintain that the rule is the majority. The same is said regarding the negation and the generality on the side of the subject. So ponder this. This is what I have, and perhaps what you have is better than it, and Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

(And they do not perceive when they will be resurrected). That is, when they will be brought forth from the graves, despite it being something that must happen and one of the most important matters for them. Ayyan is an interrogative noun for time; hence it is said that its origin is ayy ana—that is, "at what time," even if the known is the opposite. It is governed by yub‘athun (they will be resurrected), and the sentence is in the place of an object for yash‘urun (they perceive), and yash‘urun is suspended because of the interrogation. The collective pronoun is for the disbelievers, even if the lack of perception of what was mentioned is general, so that there is no necessity for fragmentation between it and what is mentioned later of the pronouns specific to them, by necessity. It is said: The whole is for "none," and the attribution of the specifics of the disbelievers to all is in the category of "The sons of so-and-so did such-and-such," while the doer is some of them, and there is a debate about that. Al-Sulami read i-yan with a kasra on the hamza, and it is a dialect of the Banu Sulaym.