Tafsir of Az-Zukhruf 43:22

"Nay, they say: 'Indeed, we found our fathers upon a path [Ummah], and indeed, we are guided by their footprints.'"

(22) This is an invalidation of there being any argument for them at all. That is, they possess no argument for that—neither intellectual nor transmitted. Rather, they inclined in this to the blind imitation (taqlid) of their fathers, who were as ignorant as they.

Al-Ummah (the path/religion) refers to the creed and the way that is followed (tu'am), as in the rihlah (traveling/path) for the great person who is sought out in matters of importance. It is said, "Such a one has no ummah," meaning he has no religion and no code of conduct. The poet said: "And can the possessor of an ummah be equal to a disbeliever?" Qays ibn al-Khatim also said: "We were upon the ummah of our fathers, and the latter is guided by the former." Al-Jubba’i said: "Al-Ummah means the group," and the intended meaning is: "We found our fathers united upon that." The majority of scholars hold the first view, and upon it is the reliance. It is also pronounced immah with a kasra on the hamzah, and it was read as such by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Mujahid, Qatadah, and al-Jahdari. Ibn Ayyash read it as ammah with a fatha on the hamzah. It is stated in al-Bahr: "That is, upon a purpose and a state."

Regarding "And we are guided by their footprints" (’ala atharihim muhtadun), it is said that these are two predicates for Inna (Indeed). It is also said that "by their footprints" is connected to muhtadun (guided), and muhtadun is the predicate.

Al-Zamakhshari established this verse as proof that Allah, the Exalted, did not will disbelief from the disbeliever; rather, He only willed belief. He deemed the People of Sunnah as disbelievers—those who say that everything decreed happens by the will of Allah, the Exalted. He justified this by claiming that since the disbelievers argued that He, the Exalted, willed disbelief from them—where they said, "If the Most Merciful had willed..." etc., meaning: if His Majesty had willed that we abandon the worship of idols, we would have abandoned it—Allah, the Exalted, refuted them and invalidated their belief by His statement: "They have no knowledge of that," etc. Thus, the negation of its truth became necessary, which is exactly the position [the Mu'tazilah] hold.

The sentence is a conjunction to His statement: "And they made for Him from His servants a portion," or to "They made the angels..." etc. Thus, what it contains is another form of disbelief, and it necessitates the disbelief of those who hold that everything is by His will, the Almighty and Majestic. From what you have heard, its refutation is known.

It is also said in its refutation: It is possible that this refers to the origin of the claim, which is the making of the angels—peace be upon them—the daughters of Allah, the Exalted and Sublime (exalted is He far above that), rather than what they intended by their saying "If He had willed," etc. What was mentioned after the origin of the claim is merely the completion of it, as it is a narration of their fabricated doubt. For the worship of the angels, even if it were by His will, does not negate that it is among the ugliest of evils that is forbidden. This, however, is contrary to the apparent meaning.

Some of the eminent scholars said: Their disbelief in this was said by way of mockery. Al-Zamakhshari refuted this based on the context, as it does not indicate that they were mocking Allah, the Exalted. He narrated [their words] about them by way of condemnation and testimony to their disbelief: that they made a portion for Him, that He took daughters and chose them over sons, that they made the honored angels females, that they worshipped them, and said, "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them." If they were speaking these words by way of mockery, the utterance of the things narrated [before this]—which are considered faith according to him—would be praised for them, since they were words of disbelief uttered by way of mockery. Thus, it remains that they were serious, and all of it shares the quality of being words of disbelief. If they claim the latter alone was spoken by way of mockery and not the former, then they are doing nothing but distorting the Book of Allah, the Exalted. If this word were a word of truth they uttered in mockery, His statement: "They have no knowledge of that," etc., would have no meaning, because the obligation for one who speaks truth in mockery is to denounce his mockery, not to call him a liar.

It is not hidden that the refutation—that the context does not indicate it—is correct. As for what was mentioned regarding Allah's narration and [the accusation of] distortion, it is not so, because He, the Exalted, did not narrate a statement from them initially; rather, He established a belief for them that entails a statement or an action. He has clarified that they are lying in that belief just as they are lying in this statement. So his saying, "If they had uttered..." has no place in the context, and there is no distortion in it whatsoever from this angle. Likewise, his saying that "it would have no meaning" is rejected, because mockery is a type of ignorance, as indicated by the saying of Musa, peace be upon him: "I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant," which has been discussed in Surat al-Baqarah. As for lying, it returns to its content and what is intended by it, as you have heard. Whoever says "There is no god but Allah" in mockery is a liar in what it entails—because it informs of the negation of plurality, whereas he intends the affirmation of plurality—for it is an affirmation of monotheism. Understand this.

Thus it is in al-Kashshaf. It is also stated therein that their saying "If the Most Merciful had willed," etc., is understood to be disbelief from several angles:

First: It is an excuse for their worship of the angels, peace be upon them, which is disbelief, and an assertion that if it were by the will of Allah, the Exalted, it would not be reprehensible.

Second: Disbelief and belief are related to confirming what is necessarily known as established—whether intuitively or through deduction—regarding the Origin and the Return, and denying it; not by whether the action takes place in accordance with the will or not.

Third: They pushed back against the Messenger's call to worship Him, the Exalted, and his prohibition against worshipping others, with this statement. Furthermore, they are bound by the logic of this statement, because if everything rests upon the will of Allah, the Exalted, then He has willed the sending of the Messengers, and He has willed their call to worship Him, and their rejection of Him, and He has willed their entering the Fire. Thus, the denial and the pushing back after this statement is proof that they said it not out of belief, but out of recklessness. To this is the allusion in His, the Exalted, statement regarding the like of it: "Say, 'To Allah belongs the clear argument; if He had willed, He would have guided you all.'"

In this, they frustrate the Creator by establishing a contradiction between the Will and the opposite of what is commanded, necessitating that He does not desire except what He commands, and does not forbid except what He does not desire. This is frustration from two angles: removing some of the decreed things from being under His power, and narrowing the scope of His command and prohibition. This is exactly the doctrine of their brothers, the Qadariyyah. Because of this point, their saying: "And they said, 'If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them'" was made the crux of the discourse, and it did not say: "And they worshipped the angels and said: If He had willed..." The comparison to their saying—that it was only brought to push back against what is known by necessity—is His, the Exalted, statement about them: "If our Lord had willed, He would have sent down angels." Thus, the rejection is disbelief, and the frustration is disbelief upon disbelief.

His, the Exalted, statement: "They have no knowledge of that" may refer to everything that preceded, from His saying: "And they made for Him from His servants a portion" up to this point. It may also refer to the latter. It is established that they said it without knowledge, and this is more apparent due to proximity. Each [preceding statement] is followed by an independent negation, in conformity with what is in Surat al-An'am. His, the Exalted, saying: "They are but lying" (In hum illa yakhrusun), according to this reading, refers to concluding the intent from this implication, for it has been established that it is against them, not for them. A hint of this was made in Surat al-An'am, or [it refers to] the judgment of the impossibility of separation while the judge permits separation at the time of his judgment; for that indicates his lying, even if that judgment is in itself a true and correct fact, for it is right to be known—just as you say: "Zayd is standing," definitively or absolutely, while you have the possibility of its opposite.

This is not a return to the doctrine of those who make truth the conformity of the judgment to the believer's belief. Understand this. Since it was an excuse for what has passed, it is valid that the lying refers to the fact that it is not valid as an excuse—meaning they are liars in the claim that the Will necessitates the conformity of the command to it. This is what the Imam, the Allama, and the Judge preferred. The apparent meaning is what we have presented. The following [statement about] al-kharas (lying) is by way of clarification or an introduction to His, the Exalted, statement: "They have no knowledge of that." His, the Exalted, statement: "They follow naught but assumption" in Surat al-An'am is proof of what we have pointed out. Thus, it has appeared to the truth-seeker that the verse serves as an argument for the People of Sunnah, not the Mu'tazilah. He said in the verse of Surat al-An'am: "This saying of theirs is either for the claim of legitimacy, in rejection of the Messengers, or for the admission that they are upon falsehood, as an excuse that they are coerced." The first is false, because the Will relates to whatever they do, whether legitimate or otherwise. So, whatever Allah, the Exalted, willed to happen from them as legitimate, happened as such; and whatever Allah, the Exalted, willed to happen as not such, happened as such.

There is no doubt that whoever imagines that an action being by the Will of Allah, the Exalted, contradicts the coming of the Messengers, peace be upon them—unlike what the perpetrator is upon of disbelief and misguidance—has lied entirely, and he is a liar in concluding the intent from this implication. The apparent meaning of the verse is driven toward this meaning. The second [interpretation], despite containing the attainment of the intent—which is the admission of falsehood—is also false, as there is no coercion; for the Will related that they would associate partners out of their own choice, and Knowledge related likewise. Thus, it confirms the rebuttal of the Qadariyyah, it does not validate it. To this is the allusion in His, the Exalted, saying: "Say, 'To Allah belongs the clear argument.'"

Furthermore, they are liars in this statement because of their certainty where there is no assumption at all, let alone knowledge. This is because part of knowledge is that knowledge of the attributes of Allah, the Exalted, is a branch of knowledge of His Self, the Almighty and Majestic; and belief in them is likewise. Those who argue with it are disbelievers, polytheists, and anthropomorphists. The Allama al-Tayyibi relayed parts of the latter discourse from the Imam of the Two Holy Cities, may mercy be upon him, in al-Irshad.

The eminent scholars have extended the discourse in this place, and I see that the man—may Allah, the Exalted, water his resting place with the downpour of His pleasure—has churned all of that and brought its butter; indeed, he has left no part of the research for those who came after him. So contemplate, and Allah, the Almighty and Majestic, is the Grantor of success.