Tafsir of Al Imran 3:7

(He it is who has sent down to you the Book...) This is an inception intended to invalidate the specious arguments of the delegation and their brethren, which arose from what the Quran stated regarding the description of the Messiah (peace be upon him) following the clarification of the exclusivity of Lordship and its pivot belonging to Him, the Exalted.

It is said that the delegation said to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Are you not saying that Isa is the Word of Allah and a Spirit from Him?" He said: "Yes." They said: "That is sufficient for us." Thereupon, Allah the Exalted refuted their fallacy and their temptation, and clarified that the Book is founded upon firm principles and branches built upon them, which speak the truth and judge the invalidity of what they are upon. This is how it is said, and from this, the aspect of the verse's suitability to what precedes it is known. It has been objected that this report has no trace in any reliance-worthy chain of narration outside of this. The most that has been found from al-Rabi‘ is that what is meant by the relative pronoun that follows is the delegation. In this, there is [the fact] that the very same report was extracted in al-Durr al-Manthur from Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir, from al-Rabi‘.

According to some, the verse was revealed concerning the Jews. This occurred when Abu Yasir ibn Akhtab, accompanied by a group of Jews, passed by the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) while he was reciting the opening of Surah al-Baqarah: (Alif-Lam-Mim. That is the Book...). He then went to his brother, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, among a group of Jews and said: "Do you know? By Allah, I have heard Muhammad reciting what was sent down to him: (Alif-Lam-Mim. That is the Book)." He asked: "You heard it?" He replied: "Yes." Huyayy then walked with those men to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: "Is it not mentioned that you recite in what was sent down to you: (Alif-Lam-Mim. That is the Book)?" He replied: "Yes." He said: "Allah the Exalted sent prophets before you, and we do not know any prophet among them whose length of kingdom or term of his nation was clarified to him, except for you. The Alif is one, the Lam is thirty, and the Mim is forty; so this is seventy-one years. Is there any other?" He replied: "Yes, (Alif-Lam-Mim-Sad)." He said: "This is heavier and longer; the Alif is one, the Lam is thirty, the Mim is forty, and the Sad is ninety; so this is one hundred and sixty-one years. Is there any other?" He replied: "Yes, (Alif-Lam-Ra)." He said: "This is heavier and longer. Is there any other?" He replied: "Yes, (Alif-Lam-Mim-Ra)." He said: "This is heavier and longer." Then he said: "Your matter has become confused for us, until we do not know if you have been given a little or a lot." Then he said: "Rise." Then Abu Yasir said to his brother and those with him: "What makes you know? Perhaps He has gathered all of this for Muhammad." They said: "His matter has become ambiguous to us."

Al-Bukhari in al-Tarikh, Ibn Jarir, and others have extracted this from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), except that it contains "they allege" that these verses were revealed concerning them, which suggests a lack of certainty regarding that. Along with this, it is made unlikely by the previously mentioned report that Allah the Exalted sent down concerning the matter of those delegates from the beginning of Al-Imran to more than eighty verses.

Granting for the sake of argument that we overlook this, it is possible that the aspect of the verse's connection to what precedes it is that there is concealment in the mutashabih (allegorical), just as the imagery of what is in the wombs is likewise, or that in this there is the imaging of the spirit with knowledge and its perfection through it, and in what preceded it, there is the imaging of the body and its leveling. Since there is in each of them an imaging and a completion, in general, mentioning it with it is suitable. And since there is a difference and disparity between the real physical imaging and that which is not so—the spiritual—the conjunction was omitted.

His saying, the Exalted: (From it are verses...) The prepositional phrase is a predicate moved to the front, and ayat (verses) is a delayed subject, or vice versa. The first is preferred as it is more consistent with the rules of the discipline; the second, as it is more profound in the conciseness of the meaning, since the original intent is the division of the Book into the two known categories, not that they are [merely] from the Book. The sentence is either inceptive, or it is in the place of an accusative state (hal) from "the Book"—meaning: He is the One who sent down to you the Book, being in this state, i.e., divided into muhkamat (clear) and others. Or the prepositional phrase alone is the state, and ayat is raised by it as an agent.

(Clear [verses]) —an adjective for "verses," meaning: clear in meaning, manifest in indication, precise in expression, protected from probability and ambiguity.

(They are the Mother of the Book)—i.e., its origin and the foundation therein to which others are referred. The Arabs call every جامع (comprehensive entity) that serves as a reference point a "mother." The sentence is either an adjective for what precedes it or inceptive. The "Mother" was singularized despite the plurality of the verses because the intent is to state the originality of each one of them, or to state that all of them are in the position of a single verse.

(And others [are] allegorical)—an adjective for an omitted noun conjoined to ayat, i.e., "and other verses." These are, as al-Radi said, the plural of ukhra (other), which is the feminine of akhar. Its meaning in origin is "more late." The meaning of "Zayd came to me, and another man" is "Zayd came to me, and a man later than him in meaning among the meanings." Then it was transferred to the meaning of "different." So the meaning of "another man" is "a man other than Zayd." It is not used except in what is of the same genus as the mentioned [person] or not; thus one does not say "Zayd came to me and another donkey" or "another woman." When it exited the meaning of preference (tafdil), it was used without the requirements of the af‘al preference form—namely, "min," annexation, and the "al" [article]. The way to use it devoid of "al" and annexation is according to what it is—such as rajulan akharan (two other men), rijal akharun (other men), imra’ah ukhra (another woman), imra’atan ukhrayan (two other women), and niswah ukhar (other women). Most grammarians held that it is diptote (ghayr munsarif) because it is an adjective derived from al-akhar. They said: because the principle in the af‘al preference form is that it is not pluralized except accompanied by "al-", like al-akbar and al-asghar. So it was diverted from its principle and given, while devoid [of the article], a plurality that is not given to others except when accompanied [by the article]. It is said: the evidence for the diversion of ukhar is that if it were with an implicit "min"—as in Allah-u akbar—it would be necessary to say bi-niswatin akhar on the pattern of af‘al, because the af‘al preference form, as long as "min" is present or implicit, is not permitted to match the one to whom it belongs; rather, it must be singularized. And it is not permitted for it to be via implicit annexation, because the annexed-to (mudaf ilayh) is not omitted except with the fixed construction of the annexed (mudaf), or with something standing in the place of the annexed-to, or with the indication of what it was annexed to following the annexed, derived from the induction of their speech. Thus, nothing remains but that its origin was [with] the "al" [article]. Abu ‘Ali objected to this by saying that if it were so, it would have to be definite, like sahar. It was answered that it is not required for a diverted word to be the same in every respect as the word it was diverted from; it is only required that it be taken out of what it deserves, and what is the standard measurement for it, to another form. Yes, sometimes the intent of its definiteness is sought after the transfer—either by "al" [article] whose meaning is guaranteed, so it is fixed, or by the nature of a proper name, as in sahar, so it is prevented from declension. When the intent of "al" [article] was not sought in ukhar, it was declinable. It is not correct to intend it as a proper name, because that contradicts the adjectival nature intended by it. Ibn Jinni said: It is diverted from akhar. Ibn Malik claimed that this is the verification, and the outward speech of Abu Hayyan indicates his choice of it. They presented evidence for it that is not without scrutiny.

It described the "other" with His saying, the Exalted: (allegorical/resembling). In reality, this is an adjective for an omitted noun, i.e., "bearing potential for meanings that resemble one another," where some are not distinguished from others in the worthiness of being intended, and the matter is not clarified except through meticulous observation. The lack of clarity may be due to polysemy (ishtirak), or summary (ijmal), or because its outward meaning is resemblance. Thus, mutashabih in reality is an adjective for those meanings, which was attributed to the verses by way of attributing to the indicator what is an attribute of the indicated. Thus, what was said falls away: "The singular of mutashabihat is mutashabihah, and the singular of ukhar is ukhra, and the singular here cannot be described with this singular; so one does not say ukhra mutashabihah, unless some of the singular resembles some [other part], and that is not the meaning." Rather, the meaning is that every verse resembles another verse. So how is it valid to describe the plural with this plural while it is not valid to describe its singular with its singular? There is no need for what was laboured in the answer: that it is not a condition for the validity of describing the dual and plural that the distribution of individual adjectives over the individuals of the described be valid, just as it is not required from attribution to the two that its attribution to each one be valid, as in: (And he found therein two men fighting), since a man does not fight [alone]. It is said: Since it is the nature of similar matters that the intellect is unable to distinguish between them, everything to which the intellect is not guided is called mutashabih, even if that is not due to resemblance. Just as the mushkil (problematic), in origin, is what enters into its entanglement and the like, and is not known in itself, then it was applied to everything obscure, even if its obscurity is not from that aspect. Upon this, mutashabih is a metaphor or metonymy for that whose meaning is not clear, for example. Thus, the question is a fallacy that does not apply at all. This is what was mentioned in the interpretation of the muhkam and mutashabih, which is the position of many people and that of the Shafi‘is.

The division of the Book into these two is a division of the whole into parts, based on the fact that the intent of "the Book" is what is between the two covers, and the "al" is for the definition of the covenant. In this case, either the second "Book"—the annexed-to—is intended to be the first "Mother" (the one serving as the partition), as the hadith "repeating a thing by name" suggests, with the noun being put in the place of the pronoun to show care for the noun and to aggrandize it, and the annexation is in the meaning of "in," as in "one of the ten"—so it does not necessitate that the part be an origin for itself, because the meaning is that the clear verses, which are a part of what is between the two covers, are an origin for what is between the two covers, to which the allegorical part refers. Considering the enclosure of the whole for the part repels the suspicion of the necessity of a thing being an enclosure for itself. This is better than saying there is an implicit annexed word between the two annexed terms, such as saying: the implicit meaning is "the mother of some of the Book." For even if the "Book" remains in its state there, it is not free from affectation.

Or, the genus is intended by it, for it is like the Quran, which is applied to the common measure between the whole and every part of it, for which it has a type of specificity, as explained in the principles. And what is meant by this genus is that which is included within the allegorical verses. The "al" is then for the genus, and the annexation is in the meaning of "for." The hadith of repetition does not oppose this, as it is a principle that is often diverted from, and there is no suspicion from it that a thing is an origin for itself, nor that the position is one of implicit naming requiring an answer to that. Some contemporary scholars, protecting knowledge from the generosity of their noble minds, have suggested in the best of eras that the annexation is "lamiyyah" (possessive), and "the Book"—the annexed-to—is the very first Book, and there is no omitted annexed word in the speech. And what is necessitated by that—a thing being a mother for itself and an origin for it—does not harm [the argument] because of the difference in perspective. For its motherhood to others of the mutashabih is by way of their return to it and referral to it, and its motherhood to itself is by way of its lack of need for the appearance of its meaning to anything other than itself. It is not hidden from you that if the "mother" were, in both perspectives, literal, then the usage of the homonym in its two meanings would be necessary. If it were, in both, metaphorical, then the gathering of two metaphorical meanings would be necessary. If it were literal in origin, considering what others refer to—as is understood from some of their expressions—and metaphorical in origin, in the sense of "independent of others," then the gathering of the literal and the metaphorical would be necessary. There is no escape from this except by committing to the generality of the metaphor.

It is also permitted that the division into the two parts—muhkam and mutashabih—is the division of the universal into its particulars, so the "al" in "the Book" is for the genus, initially and finally, except that the intent of "the Book" in the first is the essence as it is—as is the known matter in such a division—and in the second, the essence considering its realization within some of the individuals, which is the mutashabih. It is permitted that the second also intends the whole of what is between the two covers, and the speech in that case is in the manner of what preceded. It is said: The most that this division necessitates, after enduring the saying that it is contrary to the apparent, is the truth of the "Book" upon the parts, and this is something that is not avoided; rather, it is the intent of the one who interpreted it as the "common measure." You know that there is other than that in it, although it is possible to repel it with consideration. Reflect on this.

Our leaders, the Hanafis, held that the muhkam is that which is clear in indication, manifest, which does not allow for abrogation. And the mutashabih is the hidden, whose meaning is not grasped by intellect or transmission, and it is what Allah the Exalted has reserved for His own knowledge, like the time of the Hour and the disjointed letters at the beginnings of the Surahs. It is said: muhkam are the obligatory duties, promises, and threats; and mutashabih are the stories and parables. Ibn Abi Hatim extracted, via ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah from Ibn Abbas, that he said: "The muhkamat are the abrogating, its lawful and prohibited, its limits and duties. And the mutashabihat are what one believes in but does not act upon." Al-Firyabi extracted from Mujahid, saying: "The muhkamat are what contain the lawful and prohibited; whatever is other than that is mutashabih." ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr extracted from al-Dahhak, saying: "The muhkamat are what have not been abrogated; the mutashabihat are what have been abrogated." Al-Mawardi said: "The muhkam is what has a rational meaning, and the mutashabih is the opposite, like the number of prayers and the specification of fasting in Ramadan to the exclusion of Sha‘ban." It is said: muhkam is what its wording is not repeated, and mutashabih is what opposes it. Others said differently. This disagreement is concerning the muhkam and mutashabih here; otherwise, the muhkam may be applied to mean "perfect in composition," and the mutashabih to what resembles each other in eloquence. In this meaning, both are applied to the entire Quran. Upon that, the saying of the Exalted was interpreted: (Alif-Lam-Ra. A Book whose verses have been made firm), and His saying, the Exalted: (A Book, allegorical, oft-repeated).

(As for those in whose hearts is deviation...) i.e., turning away from the truth and inclining from it towards desires. Al-Raghib said: "Deviation (zaygh) is inclining from the straight path to one of the two sides." Zagha, zala, and mala are close, but zagha is not said except when it is from truth to falsehood. Its verbal noun is zayghan, zayghughah, zayghanan, and zayughan. The relative pronoun is intended for the Christians of Najran or the Jews—Ibn Abbas went to this. It is said: the deniers of resurrection; it is said: the hypocrites. Imam Ahmad and others extracted from Abu Umamah, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that they are the Khawarij. The outward meaning is the generality for everyone who deviates from the truth, so let what was mentioned be carried as a clarification of some of what the general applies to, not as a specification. In making their hearts a dwelling place for deviation, there is exaggeration in their turning away from the path of guidance and their insistence on evil and corruption. Zaygh is a subject or an agent.

(They follow what resembles [of it])—i.e., they cling to that alone, in that they do not look at what corresponds to it from the muhkam and return it to it. This is either by taking its outward meaning—which is not intended by Him, the Exalted—or taking one of its false inner dimensions. In that case, they strike the Quran against itself and show contradiction between its meanings, out of stubbornness and disbelief. They carry its wording upon one of its potential meanings that conforms to their corrupt desires in that. This is what is meant by His saying, the Exalted: (seeking discord and seeking its interpretation)—i.e., seeking to tempt the believing men and women away from their religion through doubt, deception, and the contradiction of the muhkam with the mutashabih, as narrated from al-Waqidi. And seeking to interpret it according to what they desire. The annexation in "its interpretation" is for the covenant, i.e., a specific interpretation, which is what does not conform to the muhkam, but rather what was conforming to desire.

"Interpretation" (ta’wil) is explanation (tafsir), as said by more than one. Al-Raghib said: "It is from al-awwal (the beginning), which is returning to the origin, and from it is al-ma’il (the refuge) for the place one returns to. That is the returning of a thing to the intended meaning of it, whether it is knowledge or deed. From the first is what was mentioned here. From the second is His saying: 'And for separation, before the day of departure, there is an interpretation,' and His saying, the Exalted: 'The day its interpretation comes,' i.e., its clarification, which is its ultimate intended end. And His saying, the Exalted: 'That is best and better in interpretation,' it is said: better translation and meaning; it is said: better in reward in the Hereafter." End quote.

It is permitted in these two "seekings" that they be by way of distribution, such that "seeking discord" is the seeking of some, and "seeking interpretation" according to desire is the seeking of others. It is permitted that the following be for the sum of the two seekings, and that is what is worthy of the stubborn, because for the strength of his stubbornness and the excess of his corruption, he clings to both together. And that this is for each one of them in succession, and this is appropriate to the state of the ignorant, because he is perplexed, sometimes appearing, and sometimes interpreting it as he desires because he is in the grip of his passion, which follows wherever it calls him. Some people interpreted "discord" as wealth, for Allah the Exalted has named it "discord" (fitnah) in places in His speech. It is not hidden that this is nothing that is claimed [as] evidence.

In the causation of following by "seeking its interpretation"—without "its interpretation" itself—and stripping "interpretation" from the description of correctness and truth, there is an indication that they are not in the interpretation for a thing, not in a tribe, nor in a follower, nor in a backing, and that what they follow is not an interpretation at all; it is not merely an interpretation that is incorrect, for which its author might be excused.

(And none knows its interpretation except Allah. And those firm in knowledge...) [They are] in the position of a state (hal) from the pronoun in "they follow," considering the final cause, i.e., they follow the mutashabih not to seek its interpretation, while the interpretation that corresponds to the reality—as is indicated by the expression of "knowledge" and the annexation to Allah the Exalted—is specific to Him, the Exalted, and to those whom He has granted success, the Mighty and Majestic, from His servants who are "firm in knowledge," i.e., those who have stood firm and are established in it and have not been shaken in the places where feet slip and understandings stumble, to the exclusion of others, as they are isolated from that rank. This is what the apparent [meaning] necessitates in the interpretation of "the firm."

Ibn ‘Asakir extracted, via ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Azdi, that he said: I heard Anas ibn Malik say: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was asked about the firm in knowledge, and he said: 'One who is truthful in his speech, fulfills his oath, and keeps his stomach and private parts pure—those are the firm in knowledge.'" Perhaps this is a clarification of their sign and what they ought to be upon. The intent by "knowledge" is the legal knowledge derived from the niche of Prophethood, for its people are the praised ones.

(They say: "We believe in it...") This is an inceptive sentence clarifying the state of the firm, and for this reason, it is separated. The grammarians always estimate a subject for it, i.e., "They say." It has been said that there is no need for it, and the aspect of their commitment to that is not known, so let it be examined. It is permitted to be a state from "the firm," and the annexed pronoun refers to the mutashabih. Not mentioning their belief in the muhkam is for its clarity. If it refers to the Book, it also has an aspect, for its outcome is all of the parts of the Book or its components, and that is not free from the two matters. Then, this statement, even if it does not specify the firm, contains an allusion that the requirement of belief in it is not to follow in it a path that is not fitting, by interpreting it as has passed. So it is as if others are not believers.

(All is from our Lord)—is from the completion of their saying, confirming what preceded it and establishing it, i.e., each one of it and the muhkam, or each one of its mutashabih and muhkam, is sent down from His Presence, the Exalted; there is no contradiction between them. In the expression with "the Lord," there is an indication of the secret of sending down the mutashabih and the muhkam therein, in that it contains the meaning of cultivation and consideration of the interest and bringing [one] to the stages of perfection or not. Firstly, then secondly. They have said: "The mutashabih was sent down for that purpose, so that the excellence of the scholars might appear and their eagerness for the exertion in contemplating it and acquiring the sciences to which the deduction of what was intended by it from the real rulings might increase. Thus, by that and by tiring the intellects and extracting the refined purposes and fitting meanings, they attain the high ranks, and they ascend by reconciling between it and the muhkam to the canopy of certainty and the throne of tranquility, and they win the sublime visions." Thereupon, the veil is lifted for them and the abode in the gardens of truth becomes pleasant for them, and that is the furthest end and the limit in considering the interest, beyond which there is no end.

(And none will remember except those of understanding.) [This is] conjoined to the sentence "They say." It was put forward from His side, the Exalted, as praise for the firm in knowledge for the excellence of the mind and the beauty of observation, in that their intellects have been stripped of what covers them from the reliance upon the deviating desires that cloud them, and they are prepared for being guided to the landmarks of truth and ascending to the stages of sincerity. To point to that, the explicit noun was put in the place of the pronoun. This is upon the estimation that the pause is on "the firm." This is what the Shafi‘is and all those who interpreted mutashabih as what its meaning is not clarified have gone to.

As for the estimation that the pause is on "except Allah," which is the view of the Hanafis who say that the mutashabih is what Allah the Exalted has reserved for His own knowledge, "The firm in knowledge" is a subject, and "they say" is a predicate for it.

The first is preferred by several points: First, because if the intent were the clarification of the lot of the firm in opposition to the clarification of the lot of the deviators, it would be appropriate to say, "And as for the firm, they say..." Second, because there is no benefit at that point in the constraint of "firmness"; rather, this is the ruling for all scholars. Third, because the Book would not be restricted at that point to the muhkam and the mutashabih, as is the requirement of the apparent [meaning] of the expression, since it did not say "and from it are allegorical verses," because what is not clear in meaning and the scholars are not guided to its interpretation and its return to the muhkam is neither muhkam nor mutashabih in the aforementioned meaning, and it is very much. Fourth, because the muhkam would not be the "Mother of the Book" at that point, in the sense of the mutashabih referring to it, for there is no reference to it in what Allah the Exalted reserved for His own knowledge, like the number of the keepers of Hell, for example. Fifth, because it has been established in the Sahih that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed for Ibn Abbas, saying: "O Allah, grant him understanding in the religion and teach him the interpretation." If interpretation were something that no one knows except Allah the Exalted, the prayer would have no meaning. Sixth, because Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to say: "I am among those who know its interpretation." Seventh, because He, the Exalted, praised the firm in knowledge with remembering in this position, and it suggests that they have the greater lot of the knowledge of that. Eighth, because it is unlikely that Allah the Exalted would address His servants with what no one of the creation has a way to know.

The statement that "As for" is for distribution, then for the opposition of the ruling on the deviators, there must be a ruling on the firm so that the distribution is realized; the limit of the matter is that "as for" and the "fa" were omitted. And that the verse is of the category of gathering, division, and separation—gathering in His saying: (sent down to you the Book), division in His saying, the Exalted: (from it are verses, clear, they are the Mother of the Book, and others, allegorical), and separation in His saying, the Mighty and Majestic: (As for those in whose hearts is deviation) etc.—it is answered that it is necessary in the opposition of that, there be a ruling related to the muhkam, which is that the firm follow it and return the mutashabih to it, according to what is the content of His saying, the Exalted: (And those firm in knowledge...) etc. This is answered by the fact that "as for" being for distribution is a majority, not a universal, and even if it were granted, mentioning the opposite in the wording is not necessary. Then, if it were granted that the verse is of the category of gathering, division, and separation, mentioning the opposite by way of inception or state, namely "they say" etc., is sufficient for that.

The second [position—that the pause is on "except Allah"] is preferred in that it is the position of the majority of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the successors, and their followers, especially the People of the Sunnah. It is the most correct of the narrations from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Only a small group, in relation to the majority, went to the first position, as al-Sam‘ani and others stated. The hand of Allah the Exalted is with the community. Their position is supported by many reports.

First, what ‘Abd al-Razzaq extracted in his Tafsir and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak from Ibn Abbas, that he used to read: "And none knows its interpretation except Allah," and he would say: "And those firm in knowledge say: 'We believe in it.'" This indicates that the "wa" (and) is for inception, because this narration, even if the recitation is not established by it, its lowest degree is that it is a report with a correct chain of narration to the interpreter of the Quran, so his speech is given priority over those below him. Al-Farra’ related that in the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b also: "And those firm in knowledge say..." Ibn Abi Dawud extracted in al-Masahif, via al-A‘mash, who said in the recitation of Ibn Mas‘ud: "And its interpretation is none but with Allah. And those firm in knowledge say: 'We believe in it.'"

Second, what al-Tabarani extracted in al-Kabir from Abu Malik al-Ash‘ari, that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: "I do not fear for my nation except three traits: that wealth becomes abundant for them, so they envy one another and fight; and that the Book is opened for them, so the believer takes it, seeking its interpretation, while none knows its interpretation except Allah the Exalted."

Third, what Ibn Mardawayh extracted from the hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), that he said: "The Quran was not sent down for one part of it to contradict another. So what you know of it, act by it, and what is allegorical, believe in it."

Fourth, what al-Hakim extracted from Ibn Mas‘ud, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), saying: "The first Book was sent down from one door, on one letter. And the Quran was sent down from seven doors, on seven, discouraging and commanding, lawful and prohibited, muhkam and mutashabih, and parables. So make lawful its lawful, and prohibit its prohibited, and do what you were commanded with, and end from what you were forbidden from, and take warning from its parables, and act by its muhkam, and believe in its mutashabih, and they say: 'We believe in it, all is from our Lord.'" Al-Bayhaqi extracted in al-Shu‘ab something similar from Abu Hurairah.

Fifth, what Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Abbas, in marfu‘ form: "The Quran was sent down on four letters: lawful and prohibited, which no one is excused for his ignorance of; and interpretation, whose interpretation the scholars know; [and] mutashabih, which no one knows except Allah the Exalted, and whoever claims knowledge of it other than Allah the Exalted is a liar," to other reports indicating that the mutashabih is from what no one knows the interpretation of except Allah the Exalted.

Some of the verifiers held that both the pause and the continuation are permitted, and for each of them there is a sound aspect. Al-Raghib clarified that the Quran, when considering some of it against others, is of three types: muhkam absolutely, mutashabih absolutely, and muhkam from one aspect, mutashabih from another. The mutashabih in general is of three types: mutashabih from the aspect of wording only, from the aspect of meaning, and from both together.

The first is two types: one returns to the individual words, either from the aspect of obscurity, like al-abb and yazzifun, or polysemy, like "hand" and "eye." The second returns to the sum of the composed speech, and that is of three types: a type for the brevity of speech, like: (And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those that please you); a type for its expansion, like: (There is nothing like unto Him), because if it were said, "nothing is like Him," it would be clearer to the listener; and a type for the composition of speech, like: (Sent down to His servant the Book, and did not make in it any crookedness. [It is] straight), since its estimation is: "Sent down to His servant the Book, straight, and did not make in it any crookedness."

The mutashabih from the aspect of meaning are the attributes of Allah the Exalted and the attributes of the Day of Resurrection, for those attributes are not conceivable to us, as there does not form in our souls an image of what we have not sensed or is not of its genus.

The mutashabih from both aspects are five types: the first from the aspect of quantity, like generality and specification, like: (Kill the polytheists); the second from the aspect of modality, like obligation and recommendation in like: (Then marry those that please you of women); the third from the aspect of time, like the abrogating and the abrogated, like: (Fear Allah with His right of fear); the fourth from the aspect of place and the matters in which the verse was sent down, like: (And it is not righteousness that you enter houses from their backs) and: (Indeed, the postponement [of sacred months] is an increase in disbelief), for whoever does not know their customs in the pre-Islamic era, interpretation of these is difficult for him; and the fifth from the aspect of the conditions by which an act becomes sound or corrupt, like the condition of prayer and marriage.

Then he said: "When this summary is conceived, it is known that everything the commentators mentioned in the interpretation of mutashabih does not exit these divisions." Then all mutashabih is of three types: a type for which there is no way to stand upon, like the time of the Hour, the emergence of the Beast, and other than that; a section for which man has a way to know, like obscure words and complex rulings; and a type wavering between the two matters, specific in its knowledge to some of the firm in knowledge, and hidden from those below them, which is what is pointed to by his saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "O Allah, grant him understanding in the religion and teach him the interpretation."

When you know this, the permissibility of the two matters appeared to you: the pause on "except Allah" and the pause on "the firm." Some of the leaders of verification said: "The truth is that if the mutashabih is intended as that for which there is no way for the created [to know], then the truth is the pause on 'except Allah.' And if it is intended as that which is not clear, such that it covers the summary and the like, then the truth is the conjunction [by 'and']. The pause is also permitted because not all of it is known, or it is not known in its essence except by Allah the Exalted. As for when it is interpreted as what the definitive—i.e., the transmitted text or the decisive rational proof—indicated that its outward meaning is not intended, and no proof has been established for what is intended, then there are two schools: among them are those who permit engaging in it and interpreting it by what returns to the path in such [matters], so the pause and its opposite are permitted for him. And among them are those who forbid engaging in it, so interpreting it is forbidden and the pause is mandatory for him."

The followers of the pause from the Hanafi masters answered what others mentioned in preferring the opposite from the points: Regarding the first, that the intent was to clarify the lot of the firm in opposition to the lot of the deviators, except that he did not say "And as for the firm," out of exaggeration in the care for the status of the firm, as they were not put on the path of verbal equivalence to these deviators, and they were protected from being mentioned with them, as opposites are mentioned mostly in such positions. Close to this is His saying, the Exalted: (Allah is the ally of those who believe; He brings them out of darkness into the light. And those who disbelieve, their allies are the Taghut), as He did not say: "And the Taghut are the allies of those who disbelieve," nor "And those who believe, their ally is Allah," out of glorification of His status, the Exalted, and observing the care for the status of the believers.

Regarding the second, that the benefit of the constraint of "firmness" is the exaggeration in restricting the knowledge of the interpretation of the mutashabih to Him, the Exalted, because if they themselves do not know it—as the ruling on them that they say "We believe in it" suggests—then others are more deserving of not having the knowledge. Thus, no one knowledgeable of it remains except Allah the Exalted.

Regarding the third, that the saying of the lack of restriction is committed to. In al-Itqan, it is that some said: "The verse does not indicate restriction to the two things, as there is nothing from its ways in it. Were it not for that, His saying, the Exalted: (That you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them) would be problematic, because the knowledge of the muhkam does not depend on the clarification, and the mutashabih is not hoped to be clarified. So what is this that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) clarifies?"

Regarding the fourth, by committing to the fact that the annexation of "mother" to "the Book" is in the meaning of "in," and the muhkam is a mother "in" the Book, but not for the mutashabih that Allah the Exalted has reserved for His own knowledge; rather, it is a mother and origin in understanding the legal acts of worship, such as the obligation of knowing Him, believing His messengers, complying with His commands, and avoiding His prohibitions. Upon the estimation of saying that the annexation is "lamiyyah," motherhood to the Book is committed to, considering some of it, which is the intermediary between the two parts, for the clear indication is often referred to in its hidden [matters] from what has not reached the limit of reservation.

Regarding the fifth, that the interpretation which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed for Ibn Abbas [to possess] is not necessarily to be carried upon the interpretation of what its knowledge has been reserved to Him, the Exalted; rather, it is permitted to carry it upon the explanation of what its explanation is hidden from the section wavering between the two matters mentioned by al-Raghib.

Regarding the sixth, that the narration from Ibn Abbas that he said: "I am among those who know its interpretation" is opposed by what is more correct than it by degrees, so it falls from the degree of consideration. Upon the estimation of conceding its consideration, it is possible to say: his intent—may Allah be pleased with him—is "I am among those who know its interpretation," i.e., the mutashabih in general, according to what the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed for me. Even if it is said that this is mutashabih, it is in reality an intermediary between the muhkam and the mutashabih in the intended meaning.

Regarding the seventh, that the praise of the firm with remembering is not because they have a lot in knowing it, but because they have taken heed, so they opposed their desire and stopped at what their Lord set for them and did not follow the path of the deviators and did not engage with the engaged ones. It is possible, remotely, that "remembering" is intended as benefiting metaphorically, i.e., that the firm are those who benefit by it, as they believe in it for the purity of their intellects from the veil of desire, just as they believed in the Unseen. This is unlike the deviators, as the mutashabih became a harm and a burden upon them, as they went astray in it greatly and led astray from the straight path. He has said, the Exalted, from before, in what He struck as a parable: (He lets astray many thereby, and He guides many thereby. And He does not let astray thereby except the defiantly disobedient).

Regarding the eighth, that there is no remoteness in that Allah the Exalted addresses His servants with what no one of the creation has a way to know, and that is from the door of trial, just as He tested His servants with many duties and abundant acts of worship whose reality of the secret no one knew. The secret in this trial is the clipping of the wings of the intellect, the breaking of the intensity of thought, and the removal of the pride of the soul's peacock, so that the heart may turn with all its fibers toward the Kaaba of servitude and submit under the curtains of Lordship and confess to the shortcoming and admit to the inability to reach what is in those palaces. In that is the furthest of cultivation and the limit of interest. This is if what is intended by "what no one of the creation has a way to know" is what no one of them has a way to know by way of thought. As for if what is intended is what there is no way to know absolutely, whether by summary or detail, by revelation or by inspiration to a prophet or a saint, then the existence of such an addressee in the Quran is in the realm of prevention. Perhaps the one who says that the mutashabih is from what Allah the Exalted reserved for His own knowledge does not prevent its teaching to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) by way of revelation, for example, nor its casting into the heart of the perfect saint in detail; but it does not reach the degree of encompassing, like the knowledge of Allah the Exalted. And if it is not detailed, then at least it is summarized. The prevention of this or that is something that almost no one says who knows the rank of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the rank of the perfect saints of his nation. The prevention is only from encompassing and from knowing it by way of observation and thought, which is the accustomed path and the trodden way in knowing the difficulties and obtaining the theoretical matters. Since this meaning of "know" is prompted when attributed to the firm, its attribution to them is prevented. Whenever knowledge is intended from other than the path of thought, the attribution is sound and the conjunction is permitted. But without the suspicion of this intent from the apparent [meaning] of the speech, it is impossible. For this reason, the statement of lack of conjunction was widespread, and the statement of it was safer.

What we have said is supported by what Imam al-Sha‘rani mentioned. He said: "My teacher ‘Ali al-Khawwas—may his secret be sanctified—informed me that Allah the Exalted disclosed to him the meanings of Surah al-Fatihah, and two hundred thousand, forty thousand, and nine hundred and ninety sciences emerged from it. He used to say: 'No one is called a scholar—meaning to the people of Allah—except one who knows every word the Law has brought.'" And he said in al-Kashf regarding like Qaf, Sad, Ha-Mim, Ta-Sin: "Perhaps the realization of what is beneath it to its people is like our realization of the primary matters." It should not be deemed unlikely, for the bounty of the Creator, whose favor is general, is not restricted, and the preparation of the perfect human for acceptance is not bounded. And whoever does not believe in general that beyond the realizations of thought and its beginnings there is a stage or stages—the lot of the intellect from which is the lot of the senses from the intelligible matters—then he has not been saved from the strait of negation or anthropomorphism. And if he does not rectify his state, he will remain after the lifting of the veil in this bewilderment. Know from this that the ranks are different, and that encompassing the divine truths as they are is impossible except for the Creator, the Glorified is His mention, and that it is necessary for the knower, even if he reaches the highest ranks, that there remain for him what must be believed in as unseen, which is from the mutashabih of which the firm say: (We believe in it, all is from our Lord). This is what must be believed in so that one does not deviate.

Then know that many people have made the transmitted attributes—like istiwa (establishment), hand, foot, descent to the lowest heaven, laughter, amazement, and the like—from the mutashabih. The school of the predecessors and al-Ash‘ari—may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him—from among their notables, as al-Ibanah clarified regarding his state, is that they are attributes established beyond the intellect. We have not been charged except with believing in their establishment with the belief in the absence of corporality and resemblance, so that the transmitted [text] does not contradict the intellect. The successors held to interpreting them and specifying the intent of Allah the Exalted from them. So they say: istiwa, for example, is in the meaning of istila (conquest) and overcoming. That is an effect from the effects of some of the eight attributes that, according to them, Allah the Exalted has no attributes beyond them, until al-Sakuti claimed—would that he had remained silent—that what is beyond that is impossible, since no impossibility is necessitated by its negation, and everything whose negation does not necessitate an impossibility is not mandatory, and Allah the Exalted is not described except with the mandatory.

Al-Sha‘rani mentioned in al-Durar al-Manthurah that the school of the predecessors is safer and more firm, for the interpreter shifted from the explanation of the physical establishment upon the throne—the spatial one—by transcendence, to the royal resemblance—the generated one—which is the istila upon the place. So it is a shift from resemblance to a created thing "A" to resemblance to a created thing "B." His intellect did not reach, in transcendence, the degree of the Law in His saying, the Exalted: (There is nothing like unto Him). Do you not see that he sought evidence in rational transcendence in istiwa by the saying of a poet: "Bishr has established himself upon Iraq, without war and without blood being spilled"? And where is the establishment of Bishr upon Iraq from the establishment of the Most Gracious upon the Throne? The end of the matter necessitates saying that the intent is an establishment that befits the status of the Most Gracious, the Glorified is His Majesty. So let him say from the beginning, before enduring the trouble of this interpretation: "An establishment that befits the status of Him whose status is mighty and who is exalted above the realization of the intellects." This is more befitting of etiquette and more compliant with the perfection of servitude. Upon it walked the head of the nation and its leaders, it was chosen by the leaders of the jurists and its commanders, and the leaders of hadith invited to it in the past and present, until Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said, as extracted from him by al-Lalika’i: "The jurists have all agreed, from the East to the West, on belief in the attributes without interpretation or resemblance."

It was narrated from Sulayman ibn Yasar that a man called Dabay‘ came to Medina and began asking about the mutashabih of the Quran. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—sent for him, and he had prepared palm branches. He said: "Who are you?" He said: "I am ‘Abdullah Dabay‘." ‘Umar took a branch from those branches and struck him until he made his head bleed. In one narration, he struck him with the branches until he left his back scarred. Then he left him until he recovered, then he returned to him, then he left him until he recovered. He called him again to return. He said: "If you want to kill me, kill me a good killing." He gave him permission to [return to] his land and wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari that no one from the Muslims should sit with him.

It is not said: "If such allegorical [matters] are left upon their outward meanings, they indicate corporality, and if their outward meanings are not intended, then they are interpreted." For we say: We choose the second part and do not concede that interpretation is the removal of speech from its outward meaning absolutely, but rather its removal to a specific, known meaning, as when it is said istiwa, for example, is in the meaning of istila. Granted that interpretation has two famous meanings, neither of which is truthful to the negation of the outward without specifying the intended. One of them is translating the thing and explaining it, which clarifies it. And the second is clarifying its reality and bringing it out, either by knowledge or intellect. For whoever says: "After transcendence, I do not know of these allegorical [matters] except that Allah the Exalted described Himself with them and intended from them a meaning befitting His majesty—the Glorified is His Majesty—and I do not know that meaning," it is not said regarding him that he translated and clarified, nor did he explain the reality and bring out the intended, so that it might be said he interpreted. Whoever looks deeply into the sources of interpretation will not doubt the correctness of what we have said.

Yes, a small group of the predecessors went to keeping the likes of what was mentioned upon their outward meanings, except that they negate their requirements that occur to the mind which necessitate the attribution of deficiency to Him—the Mighty and Majestic—and they say: "They are requirements that it is not correct for them to be detached from their requisites in our generated attributes. As for the attributes of Him whom there is nothing like unto, they are not requirements in reality, so that saying they are detached is sophistry. And where is the dust from the Lord of Lords?" It is as if they only said that, out of their thought that the saying of the others from the predecessors is interpretation, and "The firm in knowledge" do not go to it, or that they found some reports suggesting that, like what Muqatil and al-Kalbi narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding istawa that it is in the meaning of istaqarra (settled). And what Abu al-Qasim extracted via Qurrah ibn Khalid from al-Hasan from his mother from Umm Salamah regarding His saying, the Exalted: (The Most Gracious [is] upon the Throne established), that she said: "The modality is not rational, the establishment is not unknown, the affirmation of it is from faith, and denial of it is disbelief."

Close to this statement is what the speech of many of our leaders, the Sufis, explicitly states. They said: "These allegorical [matters] are carried upon their outward meanings with the assertion of transcendence, which is indicated by His saying, the Exalted: (There is nothing like unto Him), since the existence of the Truth—the Exalted is His status—is not restricted by the universes, even if He reveals Himself in what He wills of them, for He has the perfection of absoluteness, even from the restriction of absoluteness." It is not hidden that carrying the allegorical [matters] upon their outward meaning with the transcendence befitting the majesty of His essence, the Exalted, is a stage beyond the stage of the intellect, and a sea in which only he who has won the nearness of supererogatory deeds swims.

Some leaders of verification mentioned that the path of the intellect in knowing the eight famous attributes is like its knowledge of those attributes which the successors claim their return to, if one looks deeply. The proof and the witnessing of the eye have stood upon the absence of resemblance in essence and attributes also. But His attributes—the Exalted—and His beautiful names are two sections: a section that resembles what we have of attributes of a corresponding type, even if they are distant. And it is not said: "So it is necessary in it, in our understandings—we the deficient—that it be named by those names famous among us, so it is named 'knowledge,' for example, not 'tool' or 'pen'." And a section that is not like that, and it is what is pointed to by his saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) or "which You have reserved in the knowledge of the Unseen with You."

So sometimes, longing names are mentioned for it, because from it is what the perfect human has a share in, by way of succession and verification. So sometimes al-yad (the hand), descent, al-qadam (the foot), and the like of these imaginary [terms] are mentioned with the rational proof and the existential witnessing of the transcendence of the Exalted above every perfection that man conceives and encompasses, let alone deficiency. So he knows that he pointed to that section which was known by summary. At that time, he turns with his entirety toward the Kaaba of Majesty and Beauty, so what he finds companionship in is poured upon him from the fountain of perfection, and the manifest state is disclosed to him. And since it has no correspondence to what we have, there is no expression to translate it except by way of imagination. To it is the pointing of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever knows Allah, his tongue becomes silent."

And another [point] explains the purpose of all, and what he is loved by—the Exalted—is what is protected from the accusation of others' realization, from the likes of those openings. Perhaps their realization with their people is like the realization of primary matters, except that there is no encompassing; rather, it is necessary that something remain, as was pointed to. Upon this also, it is more fitting that one pauses, because it is the slogan of those whom we have as a good example, with the appearance of its aspect. But the verse is not to be made an argument against one who interpreted the likes of: (And the earth all together will be His grip on the Day of Resurrection), for example, since it is not conceded that it is included in that mutashabih. Carrying it upon the metaphor common in the speech of the Arabs, and the writing that reaches in fame the amount of the literal, is more apparent than carrying it upon an unknown meaning. Yes, if it were said: "The imaging of greatness in this manner indicates that the intellect is not independent in realizing it and that it is too mighty for intellects to encompass, so the essence is from the mutashabih which the verse indicated, and belief in it is mandatory," it would be good and would gather between what the predecessors were upon and what the successors walked upon. This is what must be believed in so that it does not necessitate disparagement of one of the two parties, as Ibn al-Qayyim did, until he said: "The Ash‘aris are like the Jewish." May Allah the Exalted protect us from that.

Upon this, the mutashabih in the verse must be interpreted as what encompasses the two sections, and the "mother" is returned to it in distinguishing the two sections: one of them is its branch of faith, and the second is its branch of certainty. Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id mediated in the issue of interpretation—and it is possible that he did not exclude what this verifier said finally from the mutashabih—so he said: "If the interpretation is close to the tongue of the Arabs, it is not denied; or if it is distant, we stop at it and believe in its meaning in the manner in which it was intended, with transcendence. And what the meaning of these wordings was, being apparent and customary from the address of the Arabs, we say by it without stopping, as in His saying, the Exalted: (O my regret over what I neglected in the side of Allah), so we carry it upon the right of Allah, the Exalted, and what is due to Him." Let this position be understood, for how many nations have slipped in it after nations.