Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:87

"Gathering" (al-jam’) is in the sense of the hashr (assembling); this is why it is connected with the preposition ila (to), just as the hashr is connected with it in His saying—Exalted is He: To Allah you shall be gathered. It may be said that it is connected with it due to it implying the meaning of ifda’ (leading to/reaching), which is connected with it—meaning: He will surely assemble you from your graves to the reckoning of the Day of Resurrection, or moving toward it. It is also said that ila is in the sense of fi (in), as the scholars of the Arabic language have established, meaning: He will surely gather you in that day.

No doubt about it: That is, in the Day of Resurrection or in the gathering. The sentence is either a circumstantial qualifier (hal) from "the Day," or an attribute of an omitted verbal noun, meaning: "a gathering in which there is no doubt." "Resurrection" (al-qiyamah) is the meaning of qiyam (standing/rising); the ta (feminine marker) was added for intensification, as in ‘allamah (very learned) and nassabah (very expert in genealogy). That day was named as such because of the people rising in it for the reckoning, along with the intensity of the terror that occurs in it.

The relevance of the verse to what precedes it is apparent; when He—Exalted is He—mentioned that Allah is ever, over all things, a Reckoner, He followed it with the proclamation of His Oneness—Exalted is He—and the gathering and resurrection from the graves for the reckoning before Him. Al-Tabarsi said: The mode of the composition is that when He—Exalted is He—commanded and forbade previously, He clarified thereafter that no one deserves worship except Him, so that they may know according to what He has made obligatory upon them. He signaled that this action has a reward by clarifying its time, which is the Day of Resurrection, so that they may find [the reward] in it, and be desirous and fearful.

And who is more truthful than Allah in statement?: The interrogation is one of negation. The comparative degree is considered regarding the quantity of truthful statements, not the quality, since disparity is not conceivable in them; because truth is correspondence to reality, and it does not increase. Thus, it is not said of one statement: "It is more truthful than another," except through interpretation and metaphorical usage. The meaning is: No one is more truthful than He—Exalted is He—in His promise and all His other statements. It is a negation of equality as well, as in their saying: "There is no one in the city more learned than Zayd." This is only so because of the impossibility of attributing falsehood to Him—Exalted is He—in any manner whatsoever. There is no known disagreement among those who acknowledge that Allah—Exalted is He—is a Speaker with speech, regarding this impossibility, even if their sources in reasoning differ.

The Mu’tazila have argued for the impossibility of falsehood in the speech of the Lord—Exalted is He—by stating that speech is from the acts of Allah—Exalted is He—and falsehood is inherently ugly, and Allah—Exalted is He—does not commit the ugly. This is based on their position regarding intrinsic good and evil and their obligation of upholding the beneficial and the most beneficial.

As for the Ash’arites, as Al-Amidi said in explaining the impossibility of falsehood in His eternal, self-subsisting speech, they have two paths: rational and traditional.

As for the first path: Veracity and falsehood in a report of eternal, self-subsisting speech are not inherent to it in themselves, but rather in view of what it relates to regarding the informed subject. If it relates to it as it truly is, the report is true; if it is otherwise, it is false. Given this, if the speech of the Lord—Exalted is He—that subsists in His Essence were to relate to something contrary to what it is, it would be impossible. Either this would be with knowledge of it or not. The second is not permissible, for it would necessitate ignorance, which is impossible for Him—Exalted is He—from several angles. If it were the first, it is impossible for one who is knowledgeable of a thing for the report of it not to be according to what it is, and this is known by necessity. Given this, if the report of it were to subsist in His Essence as contrary to what it is, while He is knowledgeable of it and reporting of it as it is, then the true report and the false report would have to subsist in the Essence regarding one thing from one perspective, and its invalidity is known by necessity.

It was objected that we know by necessity from ourselves that when we are knowledgeable of a thing, it is possible for us to report a false report and know that we are liars. Were we not knowledgeable of the thing reported, our knowledge of being liars would not be conceivable. It was answered that the report in which we know from ourselves that we are liars is only the vocalized report. As for the self-subsisting one, we do not concede the correctness of our knowledge of its falsehood while judging by it.

As for the second path: It is that the veracity of the Messenger (peace be upon him) has been proven by the definitive evidence of the miracle regarding that for which he is a messenger, as has been explained in its place. And it has been narrated from him via mutawatir (mass-transmitted) reports that the speech of Allah—Exalted is He—is true and that falsehood against Him—Exalted is He—is impossible. Al-Amidi examined this by saying that one might say: The validity of tradition depends on the veracity of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and his veracity depends on the impossibility of falsehood against Allah—Exalted is He, since the appearance of a miracle in accordance with his challenge of messengership is equivalent to a confirmation from Allah—Exalted is He—for him in his claim. If it were permissible for falsehood to be attributed to Him—Exalted is He—then it would be possible for Him to be a liar in confirming him, and the Messenger would not be truthful. If each of them depends on the other, this is a circular argument.

It should not be said: Proving messengership does not depend on the impossibility of falsehood against Allah—Exalted is He—so that it would be a circular argument, for the proof of messengership does not depend on being informed that he is a messenger, so that truth and falsehood could enter it; rather, it depends on the manifestation of a miracle in accordance with his challenge, which is equivalent to a creative utterance (insha’) and proof of messengership and making him a messenger at the time, like the saying of one: "I have deputized you in my affairs and appointed you as my proxy in my matters." This does not call for confirmation or denial. For it is said then: If a miracle appeared at the hands of a person who had not previously issued a challenge—based on its permissibility according to the principles of the group—the miracle would not indicate the proof of his messengership by consensus. If the manifestation of a miracle at his hand were equivalent to a creative utterance for his messengership, he would have to be a followed messenger after its appearance, and this is not the case. The fact that the creative utterance is conditional upon the challenge is far-fetched in view of the judgment of creative utterances. Assuming it is so, the most it leads to is the proof of messengership by way of a creative utterance, and it does not necessitate that the messenger be truthful in everything he reports without rational evidence indicating his truthfulness in what he reports, or Allah—Exalted is He—confirming him in that. There is no rational evidence indicating that, and Allah’s confirmation of him depends on the truthfulness of his report, so what preceded returns. Therefore, this traditional path should be in explaining the impossibility of vocalized speech, and it is correct in that, and the objection raised there is disconnected here. For the truthfulness of vocalized speech, even if it depends on the truthfulness of the Messenger, the truthfulness of the Messenger does not depend on the truthfulness of vocalized speech, but rather on the vocalized speech itself. Thus, the impossible circular argument is avoided.

In al-Mawaqif, the reasoning for the impossibility of falsehood against Him—Exalted is He—according to the people of the Sunnah is through three aspects: First, it is a deficiency, and deficiency is forbidden by consensus. Also, it would follow that we are more perfect than Him—Exalted is He—at certain times; namely, the time of our truthfulness in our speech. Second, if He—Exalted is He—were characterized by falsehood, it would be an eternal falsehood, since the contingent does not subsist in His Essence—Exalted is He. Thus, it would follow that truthfulness is impossible for Him, for that which is proven to be eternal, its non-existence is impossible. The consequence is false, for we know by necessity that whoever knows a thing, it is possible for him to report it as it is. These two aspects only indicate that the self-subsisting speech, which is an attribute subsisting in His Essence—Exalted is He—is truthful. Then he brought the third aspect as proof of the impossibility of falsehood in vocalized and self-subsisting speech, along the lines of the second path. You have known what Al-Amidi has regarding it, so contemplate all of that so that the truth may become clear to you.