Tafsir of Ash-Shura 42:51

(And it is not for any human)—meaning, it is not permissible for any individual among humankind—(that God should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sends a messenger so that he reveals, by His permission, what He wills).

Its outward meaning restricts speaking to three categories: The first is revelation (Wahy), which is intended by His saying, "except by revelation." Some have interpreted this as a casting into the heart, whether in a state of wakefulness or sleep. "Casting" is more general than inspiration (Ilham), for the inspiration of the mother of Moses was an Ilham, whereas the revelation to Abraham (peace be upon him) was a casting into the heart during sleep, not Ilham. The revelation of the Psalms (Zabur) was a casting during wakefulness, as has been narrated from Mujahid, and it is not considered Ilham. The distinction is that Ilham does not necessitate the form of psychological speech, whereas literal speech does. As for something like the revelation of the Psalms, it necessitates such a form. The application of "revelation" to "casting into the heart" has occurred in the words of Ubayd ibn al-Abras: "And God revealed to me that the people of Babel have plotted against my father, so I stood upon my feet." He intended by this "casting into my heart."

The second is causing [the human] to hear speech without the hearer seeing the one who is speaking to him. This is as it occurred with Moses, and similarly with the angels whom God Almighty spoke to regarding the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) and others like them. This is what is meant by His saying, "or from behind a veil," for it is a representation (Tamthil) of Him—Exalted is He—like the state of a veiled king who speaks to some of his intimates from behind a veil; his voice is heard, but his person is not seen.

The third is the sending of an angel, which is the prevalent condition for our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), and it is the condition for many of the prophets (peace be upon them). The claim that this is exclusively for the Messengers of Strong Will (Ulu al-Azm) is incorrect. This is what is meant by His saying, "or that He sends a messenger"—meaning an angel—(so that he reveals)—that messenger reveals to the one to whom he is sent, who is the human messenger—(by His permission)—meaning by God’s command and His facilitation—(what He wills)—that He wishes to reveal. This indicates that the first category refers to revelation from God Almighty without an intermediary, because the sending of a messenger involves the revelation of that messenger.

The Mu'tazilah based their argument on this restriction that [the Beatific] Vision is not permissible, because if it were valid, then speaking face-to-face would be valid, and the restriction would not be correct. Others have said: The intent is the restriction of speaking into [the following]: revelation in the well-known sense, speaking from behind a veil, and the human messenger speaking to their nations. This was deemed unlikely, as the convention does not consistently name the latter as "revelation."

Al-Qadi said: The meaning of His saying "except by revelation" is "except by a hidden speech that is perceived quickly, and which is not in its essence composed of articulated letters." This is what encompasses face-to-face speech—as is narrated in the Hadith of the Ascension (Mi'raj), what was promised in the Hadith of the Vision, and that which was proclaimed, as happened to Moses (peace be upon him) on the Mount. However, the connection of "or from behind a veil" to it by the first [conjunction] makes the verse evidence for the permissibility of the Vision, not for its impossibility.

Al-Zamakhshari favored the first view, and the author of al-Kashf (may God Almighty pardon him) supported him, saying: "As for us, we say—and God Almighty knows best—that His saying 'And it is not for any human' on the basis of generalization necessitates a restriction in a way that does not limit speaking to the prophets (peace be upon them). It includes the address to Mary, the mother of Moses, and what occurs to the Muhaddathin (the inspired) of this nation and others. Therefore, interpreting 'revelation' according to what al-Zamakhshari leaned toward is preferable."

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon Al-Qadi that what occurred from "behind a veil" would not be considered "revelation," not that he restricts it, because it is like saying, "It is not for you to show kindness except to the poor, and Zayd." It is possible that Zayd is included among them, as in "His angels and Gabriel." This harms Al-Qadi, for it necessitates that this category—namely, that which occurs from behind a veil—is the highest level, and thus the second [category] would not be face-to-face. The estimation of "except by revelation [without a veil] or from behind a veil" is contrary to the apparent meaning and involves breaking the syntactic structure, due to His saying "or that He sends," which is a conjunction to His saying "except by revelation," while also being contrary to the apparent meaning.

Consequently, what was built upon it from the Hadith of descent from the highest category to what is below it becomes invalid. Moreover, it does not indicate the non-occurrence of the Vision, let alone its impossibility. Rather, it indicates that if it were to occur, the [divine] speech would not accompany it. That is the correct view, because the Vision necessitates passing away (Fana) and subsistence (Baqa) in Him—Exalted is He—and this requires the lifting of the veil of the one addressed, which requires a subjective existence. Then, the perfect person, for the fulfillment of the rights of the highest stations, attains the vision in the aforementioned station of subsistence. Even so, it does not prevent him from his share of hearing the address, for that is the share of the heart that is veiled from the station of the vision. The intent is that what is correct in terms of taste (dhawq), textual transmission, and reason is that the address is absolutely from behind a veil. This is correct, but it neither benefits the denier of the Vision nor its proponent.

As for the question regarding the progression between the categories, the answer is that the progression is found between the first and the second, for which the Interlocutor (al-Kalim) was named as such. As for the third, because it is a metaphorical form of speaking, it was placed after the two categories. One should not look to it being more noble than the first category, for that matter does not pertain to the "speaking," but rather [is so] because it is specific to the prophets (peace be upon them).

The objection raised against Al-Qadi was refuted on the grounds that it does not apply, because the revelation—with that meaning, the aforementioned specification, and the restriction derived from the contrast—becomes different from what follows it, and it does not belong to either of the two categories such that one would lean toward progression or regression. For it is not conjoined by "or" with a conjunction, as is not hidden. The necessity that what occurred from behind a veil is not "revelation" is not accepted, because if one intends that it is not revelation absolutely, that is incorrect, because His saying thereafter "so that he reveals by His permission" is a signal that the intent of the preceding revelation is a specific revelation, like that which follows it. And if he intends that it is not of the specific preceding revelation, it does not harm him, because it is the same as what he meant. Indeed, the restriction according to what Al-Qadi held is not apparent except after observing that it is specific to what was done by speech. So ponder this.

The apparent view is that Aisha (may God be pleased with her) interpreted the verse in a manner similar to how the Mu'tazilah interpreted it. Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and al-Tirmidhi recorded from her that she said: "Whoever claims that Muhammad saw his Lord has lied," then she recited, "Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted. And it is not for any human that God should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil." You know that the majority of scholars hold that the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) saw his Lord Almighty on the night of the Ascension, due to the multitude of narrations explicitly stating the vision. Indeed, there is no explicit mention in them that it was with the eye, but the apparent meaning of "vision" is that it is with [the eye]. It is narrated from al-Ash'ari and a group of theologians that He—Glorified be His state—spoke to him (peace and blessings be upon him) that night without an intermediary. This is attributed to Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Baqir, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Mas'ud (may God be pleased with them all), and it is the apparent [conclusion] due to the authentic Hadiths regarding the command of the prayer, the establishment of the fifty [prayers] reduced to five, and other matters.

Aisha (may God be pleased with her) only negated it relying on inference from the verses. If she had a report [from the Prophet], she would have mentioned it. Her argumentation with the aforementioned verses is not complete. As for the lack of completeness in her argumentation with "Vision perceives Him not," it is well known. As for the lack of completeness in the argumentation with the second verse, it is because of what you heard from the author of al-Kashf (may his secret be sanctified).

Al-Khafaji said, after estimating the argument: "He [God] restricted His speech to human beings to these three. So if he whom He spoke to at the time of speech did not see Him—Exalted is He—then he would not see Him—Exalted is He—at any other time, by way of a fortiori argument. And if He was not seen at all, then no one else would see Him, as there is no one who posits a distinction."

This has been answered in the principles [of jurisprudence] by saying that it is possible the intent is to restrict speaking in this world to these three, or one could say that it is permissible for the vision to occur at the time of revelation, since revelation is speech that occurs quickly, and that does not contradict the vision. It is not hidden from you that the first answer does not benefit us in what we are considering except by committing to the view that what occurred to our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that night is not considered "speaking in this world," as mentioned by al-Shurunbulali in Ikram Uli al-Albab, because it was in the highest realm. It is also understood from the words of the author of al-Kashf that there is an implicit rejection of the conditional in the line of reasoning he established. Some have answered that the general is qualified by [a specific] evidence.

In al-Bahr, it is said: The Quraysh said, "Will you not let God speak to us and see Him, if you are a truthful prophet, just as He spoke to and was seen by Moses?" The Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace) replied, "Moses (peace be upon him) did not see God Almighty." Then the verse "And it is not for any human..." was revealed. This makes it apparent that the verse did not contain [a reference to] face-to-face speech with vision. Likewise, there was also discussion among the disbelievers regarding God speaking to Moses (peace be upon him); the Quraysh and the Jews resorted to anthropomorphism regarding that, so the verse was revealed. Thus, it not containing that [vision with speech] is a stronger repulsion of the suspicion of anthropomorphism.

In summary, what is weighted in my opinion is what the author of al-Kashf (may his secret be sanctified) said: the verse does not benefit the denier of the vision nor its proponent, and what was mentioned as the cause of revelation is not certainly established.

It is understood from the words of some that revelation, just as it occurs by casting into the heart, occurs by writing. Al-Nakha'i said: "Among the prophets (peace be upon them) were those to whom it was written on the ground." Its linguistic meaning includes that. The Imam Abu Abdullah al-Taymi al-Asbahani said: "The root of revelation is 'to make understand.' Everything that facilitates understanding, such as inspiration, gesture, or writing, is revelation." Al-Raghib said: "The origin of revelation is a quick gesture. Because of the inclusion of speed, it is called a revealed matter. This occurs by speech through symbol and allusion, and it may be by a sound devoid of composition, by a gesture with some limbs, and by writing." His saying, "And He revealed to them to glorify [Him] in the morning and evening" has been interpreted in this way; it has been said it was a symbol, an act of reflection, or writing. The act of subjugation has also been considered a form of revelation, and His saying, "And your Lord revealed to the bee" has been interpreted accordingly.

"By revelation" (wahyan), according to what al-Zamakhshari said, is a verbal noun (masdar) acting in the position of a state (hal), and likewise "or that He sends," because it is interpreted as "sending" (irsalan). "From behind a veil" is a prepositional phrase acting in the position of a state, like His saying, "and on their sides." The estimation is: "It is not valid that He should speak to anyone in any state except while revealing, or causing one to hear from behind a veil, or sending." Abu Hayyan refuted this, saying: "The occurrence of a verbal noun as a state is not to be used by analogy. One does not say 'Zayd came crying' (bukan) intending 'crying' (baki)." Al-Mubarrad permitted what was of the type of the action, such as "Zayd came walking" (mashyan) or "speedily" (sur'atan). Sibawayh forbade the occurrence of "that" (an) with the verb in the position of a state. Thus, "Zayd came that he laughs" is not permitted in the sense of "laughing" (dahikan).

He was answered regarding the first that the Qur'an is to be used as an analogy, and it does not necessitate that it be used as an analogy for others, although it may be said: It is sufficient to use al-Mubarrad's analogy. Regarding the second, he argued that the prohibition is because what results from the composition (sabk) is a definite noun, and it does not occur as a state. There is a consideration there because it is not consistent; in Sharh al-Tashil, it is mentioned that it may also be an indefinite noun—do you not see that they interpreted "that it be fabricated" as "fabricated"? Ibn Jinni presented this to Abu Ali, and he found it good. Even if we concede the consistency, a definite noun can be a state because it is in the meaning of an indefinite noun, such as "in unit." Limiting it to prohibition is better due to the strained interpretation here.

More than one chose that "revelation" and what is conjoined to it are in the accusative case due to the verbal noun, because it is a type of speech, or by estimating "the speaking is revelation." "From behind a veil" is an attribute of a deleted [noun] "speaking" or "hearing," and the attribute of a verbal noun takes its place. Sending is also a type of speech according to the outcome, and the exception is free from the most general of verbal nouns. Al-Zajjaj said: Sibawayh said, "I asked al-Khalil about His saying 'or that He sends a messenger' in the accusative, and he said: It is carried upon that which is in His saying 'that God should speak to him,' as it necessitates one to say 'It is not for a human that God should send a messenger,' and that is not permissible. The meaning is: 'It is not for a human that God should speak to him' except by revealing or by sending." Upon this, he must estimate in His saying "or from behind a veil" something like "or that He causes to hear from behind a veil." What is the incentive for that, with what you have heard?

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the exception is connected or disconnected. Abu al-Baqa opted for it being disconnected, and some refuted him by saying that the "free" exception is not described as such. The discussion is famous. Ibn 'Abla read "from behind a veil" in the plural. Nafi' and the people of Medina read "or He sends a messenger so that he reveals" with the nominative case for the two verbs, and they interpreted it as having a hidden subject—i.e., "He sends" or it is conjoined to "revelation" or to what is related to "from behind" on the basis that its estimation is "or He causes to hear from behind a veil."

The second scholar (the commentator) said: The second interpretation and what follows it is apparent, and it is the conjunction of the verbal sentence, which is in the state of a hal, to the singular hal. As for the hidden subject, if it is carried upon this, then the estimation of the subject is trivial. If it is meant that it is a new sentence, then there is nothing apparent to which it can be conjoined except "It is not for a human," and this does not have a beautiful structure. It was refuted that it is permissible for the subject to be estimated while considering the state of hal, on the basis that the nominal sentence in which the predicate is a verbal sentence conveys what the pure verbal sentence does not, which suits the state of sending a messenger. Or it is said: We do not concede that the conjunction to "it is not for a human" lacks beautiful structure. In this there is a disturbance that is not hidden.

In the verse, according to what Ibn 'Atiyyah said, is evidence that whoever swears not to speak to someone and then sends him a message, has broken his oath, because God excluded "sending" from "speaking." Al-Jalal al-Suyuti quoted this in Ahkam al-Qur'an from Malik, but there is an investigation therein. And God Almighty is the Guide.

(Indeed, He is Exalted)—high above the attributes of created things—(Wise).

(He—Exalted is He—conducts His actions according to the laws of wisdom. So He speaks at one time through an intermediary, and at another without one—either through inspiration, or through address, or through direct vision, or through an address from behind a veil, according to what the aforementioned disagreement in the interpretation of the verse necessitates.)