Tafsir of Al-An'am 6:103

"Vision does not attain Him." The plural "vision" (al-abṣār), as Al-Raghib stated, refers to the viewing organ, the faculty within it, and to "insight" (baṣīrah), which is the perceiving faculty of the heart. To "attain" (idrāk) a thing means to reach its limit and encompass it. Most theologians hold that "vision" here refers to the organ, as it is the locus of the faculty. Others say it refers to that, and also to illusions and understandings, as the Commander of the Faithful, Ali—may Allah ennoble his countenance—said: "True Oneness (Tawḥīd) does not conceptualize Him," and also, "Everything you attain is other than Him."

Al-Raghib reported from some that they interpret it as "insight" (baṣīrah), noting that this points to what is narrated from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq—may Allah be pleased with him—in his saying: "O You whose limit of knowledge is to fall short of knowing Him. For His knowledge, exalted be He, is to know that things exist, and to learn that He is not like any of them; rather, He is the Creator of everything you attain."

The Mu‘tazila used this verse to argue that He, the Exalted, cannot be seen. The structure of this argument, as found in Al-Mawaqif and its commentary, is that "attainment" (idrāk) ascribed to vision is merely "seeing" (ru’yah). There is no difference between saying "I attained it with my vision" and "I saw it" except in wording; they are synonymous, and it is impermissible to negate one while affirming the other. Thus, it is invalid to say "I saw Him but did not attain Him with my vision," or the reverse. The verse negates that vision can see Him, and because of the generic alif-lam (the definite article), this extends to all vision, at all times, in a context of hyperbole. For saying "so-and-so is attained by vision" does not imply all times, so its counterpart must imply it. Therefore, no vision sees Him, neither in this world nor the Hereafter.

Furthermore, He, the Exalted, praised Himself for not being seen, as it is mentioned amidst other praises; and whatever attribute is a virtue in its absence, its existence would be a deficiency from which Allah must be sanctified. It appears, therefore, that seeing Him, Glory be to Him, is impossible. Mentioning "from the attributes" is to exclude actions, such as pardoning and retribution, for the former is grace and the latter is justice, both of which are perfections. The conclusion is that "attainment" means absolute vision—not merely vision in the sense of encompassment—and that "vision does not attain Him" is a permanent universal negation. This is their strongest transmitted evidence on this matter, as our teacher's teacher, Al-Kurani—may his secret be sanctified—mentioned.

The response to this comes from several angles:

First: Attainment is not absolute vision—though Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash‘ari chose this, according to what Al-Amidi reported—but rather vision characterized by the encompassing of the sides of the seen object, as Ibn Abbas—may Allah be pleased with them both—explained it in one of his two interpretations. In Al-Durr al-Manthur, Ibn Jarir extracted from Ibn Abbas: "'Vision does not attain Him'—no one’s vision encompasses Allah, the Exalted." This is the view of many scholars of language and others. Vision qualified by the attribute of encompassment is absolutely more specific than absolute vision, and the negation of the more specific does not necessitate the negation of the more general. Thus, it is correct to say: "I saw it, but my vision did not attain it," meaning it did not encompass its sides, even if the reverse is not true.

Second: "Vision does not attain Him," just as it may be viewed as a negation followed by the entry of the lam (making it a universal negation like "Allah does not desire injustice for the servants"), it may also be considered as having generality first, with the negation applied to it, making it a partial negation (similar to "The slaves did not all stand," or "I did not take all the dirhams"). Thus, it negates the generality, and whenever the negation of generality is possible, the text is not definitive for the generality of negation. Even if the generality of negation is more common in such cases, it leaves no argument for the impossibility of vision absolutely. This is if al (the definite article) in al-abṣār denotes totality; if it denotes the genus, then "vision does not attain Him" is a neglected negation, which is equivalent to a partial negation, meaning "some vision does not attain Him," which is agreed upon.

Third: Even if we concede that attainment is absolute vision, that al is for totality, and that the statement is for the generality of negation, we do not concede its generality regarding states and times—i.e., we do not concede that it is permanent—because it is possible that the intent is to negate vision in this world, as is reported to be restricted by Al-Hasan and others. This is supported by what Al-Hakim Al-Tirmidhi extracted in Nawadir al-Usul and Abu Nu‘aym in Al-Hilyah from Ibn Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ recited this verse: 'My Lord, show me, let me look at You.' Allah, the Exalted, said: 'O Musa, no living being sees Me except that he dies, no dry thing sees Me except that it crumbles, and no moist thing sees Me except that it disintegrates. Only the people of Paradise will see Me, those whose eyes do not die and whose bodies do not decay.'"

Regarding their claim that it is permanent: if someone says "So-and-so is attained by vision," it does not imply all times, so its counterpart must imply it. We respond: This only holds if the contrast between "He is attained by vision" and "He is not attained by vision" must be a contradiction. There is no logical, linguistic, or religious necessity for this. As for the logic: when we find an absolute affirmative proposition, it may be countered by a permanent negative one; the permanent true proposition is only determined if the absolute one is proven false. But the falsehood of the absolute here is the very point of contention. Therefore, one cannot base the claim that "vision does not attain Him" is permanent on the falsehood of the absolute proposition (i.e., "Allah is attained by vision," meaning the vision of believers in Paradise). That would be begging the question and circular.

As for the linguistic side, a sentence—whether affirmative or negative—is used according to the context, sometimes for absolute meaning and sometimes for permanent meaning. It is not a rule in language that if we find an affirmative sentence used in one context for absolute meaning, its counterpart must be used for permanent meaning. Rather, it differs according to the context and the intent of the speaker. This is very clear.

As for the religious side, the aforementioned absolute proposition is the very point of contention between us and the Mu‘tazila. We say it is religiously true, and we argue for it with intellect and transmitted proof from the Book and Sunnah. If so, "vision does not attain Him" must not be permanent, to avoid contradiction. It would be either generally absolute or limited to a specific time. On both counts, there is no contradiction because there is no unification of time. Thus, "Allah is attained by vision" is true—i.e., the vision of believers on the Day of Resurrection, or at the time of His manifestation in His light which does not destroy vision. And "Allah is not attained by vision" is also true—i.e., in this world, with the restriction previously indicated, or at the time of His manifestation in the light that destroys vision (the radiant light referred to in the hadith in Sahih Muslim and others: "If the veils of His Face were removed, they would burn everything His vision reached"). The second of Ibn Abbas’s two interpretations points to this restriction. It is reported that he said: "Muhammad ﷺ saw his Lord." Ikrima asked him: "Does Allah not say 'Vision does not attain Him'?" He replied: "Woe to you! That is His light, which is His light. When He manifests in His light, nothing attains Him." By affirming these two lights, one can reconcile the two answers he gave to Abu Dharr when asked: "Did you see your Lord?" In one answer he said, "A light, I see it," and in the other, "I saw a light." The light whose vision he negated in the rhetorical interrogation—indicated by "I"—is His light, the one that destroys vision and which no vision can withstand. The light whose vision he affirmed is the light that does not destroy vision.

This also allows us to interpret the saying of Aisha—may Allah be pleased with her—"Whoever claims that Muhammad ﷺ saw his Lord, the Exalted, has fabricated a great lie against Allah," and her citing of this verse as evidence. It can be said that she meant: whoever claims that Muhammad ﷺ saw his Lord, the Exalted, in His light which is His light—the one that destroys vision—has fabricated a great lie against Allah. The evidence from the verse is based on the second of Ibn Abbas’s interpretations. In this case, the Mu‘tazila’s claim that "vision does not attain Him" is permanent fails, unless this absolute proposition is religiously false, which is the very point of contention. Thus, they are left with no evidence for the claim of permanence.

It may also be said that the intent is to negate vision at the time when Allah has not permitted vision to attain Him. The evidence for the correctness of this restriction is that the attainment of vision is an act of the servants and one of their acquisitions; it has been proven by more than one piece of evidence that servants have no power over any of their decreed acts except by His permission, will, and enabling. Thus, vision does not attain Him except by His permission, which is the intended meaning.

This explanation is supported and strengthened by the fact that "Vision does not attain Him" follows the words of the Exalted: "And He is Trustee over all things." The support is that Allah, the Exalted, informs us that He is Trustee over all things—meaning the Manager of their affairs—and it is known that visions are among "things," and their attainment is among their affairs. Thus, He, the Exalted, is their Trustee and Disposer of them according to His will; He bestows attainment upon them and permits them whenever He wills, however He wills, and to the extent He wills. He withholds attainment from them, completely or partially, at any time He wills, however He wills. It is clear that this is the ultimate praise of His might, power, and dominance. For the One who is Trustee over all things—if vision does not attain Him except by His permission, while He attains vision and nothing is hidden from Him—this is the pinnacle of His might and power, and His dominance over His command. Some researchers held that the verse was not brought for praise, but for intimidation—that He, the Exalted, is a Watcher from where He is not seen, so let one beware. This is clear under the second interpretation of "Trustee."

Fourth: It is possible that the intent is that "vision does not attain Him" in the customary manner of seeing perceptible objects, which is conditioned by nine customary factors, as the end of the verse indicates. It is known that the negation of the specific does not necessitate the negation of the general. Thus, the verse does not necessitate the negation of vision absolutely.

Fifth: If we concede to the opponent what they want, we say: the verse only indicates that eyes (al-abṣār) do not attain Him, and we agree with that; we claim that those who possess vision (the souls) attain Him. The objection that "just as eyes do not attain Him, others do not either, so there is no benefit in the specification" is refuted by the fact that the negation of a benefit only occurs if the meaning is restricted to negating the judgment of the mentioned on the unmentioned, which is not conceded. Perhaps it was in response to a specific questioner, or for another meaning.

Sixth: Even if we concede that the intent is that "observers do not attain Him with their eyes," it does not help the desired conclusion, because it is possible for Allah to be attained by a sixth sense different from these senses, as Dirar ibn ‘Amr Al-Kufi claimed. It is reported he said: "Allah, the Exalted, is not seen with the eye, but with a sixth sense that He, the Exalted, creates on the Day of Resurrection." He argued using this verse, saying: "It indicated a specification of attaining Allah with the eye, and specifying a judgment to a thing indicates that the state of others is different. Therefore, it must be that attaining Allah with something other than the eye is permissible in principle." Since it is proven that all existing senses now are not suited for this, it is proven that He, the Exalted, will create a sixth sense on the Day of Resurrection with which the seeing and attaining of Allah will occur.

Some people inferred from the verse that knowing the essence of Allah is impossible, based on the idea that "vision" (al-abṣār) is the plural of "vision" (baṣīrah) meaning "insight." They structure this as the Mu‘tazila structured their argument regarding the impossibility of vision. This has its own problems, though the possibility of interpreting "vision" as "insight" weakens the Mu‘tazila's argument, as is clear. They have other transmitted evidence on this matter—which we will discuss, God willing—and rational proofs which the people have engaged with in the mire of error. Perhaps the time will come to deploy the pens in the gardens of realizing this, if Allah, the Sovereign and All-Knowing, wills. From Him is the success in enabling the vision of understanding to attain hidden secrets, and in splitting the morning of truth with the flashes of lights.

"And He attains vision"—meaning He sees them in a way of encompassment, or He encompasses them with knowledge, or with both knowledge and vision, as has been said. Al-Amidi mentioned that the Basran Mu‘tazila believed that attaining Allah means vision, while the Baghdadi Mu‘tazila believed it means knowledge, not vision. "Vision" here, according to some researchers, refers to the light by which visible things are attained—for it does not see itself—unlike the physical eye, which is seen. This may be the secret in using the noun instead of the pronoun. It is also permissible to say the intent is that no eye sees itself.

"And He is the Subtile, the Expert." Thus, He, the Exalted, attains what vision does not attain. The sentence was brought to describe Him with what entails the justification of His words, "And He..."—it is permissible for many that what was mentioned is a type of laff (wrapping), for "the Subtile" (al-Laṭīf) suits His being not attained (if read with a fatha), and "the Expert" (al-Khabīr) suits His being attaining (if read with a kasra). "The Subtile" is metaphorically taken from the opposite of "dense" (kathīf), for that which cannot be attained by the senses, from the hidden thing.

It is understood from the apparent speech of Al-Baha’i, as Al-Shihab said, that there is no metaphor in this, for he said in his commentary on the Beautiful Names of Allah: "The Subtile is He who treats His servants with gentleness, and His gentleness, majestic is His glory, has no end, in its outward and inward aspects, in this life and the next ('And if you count the blessing of Allah, you will not be able to compute it')." It is said: "The Subtile is the One who is All-Knowing of the obscure and subtle aspects of meanings and truths." Hence, a person skilled in his craft is called "subtile" (laṭīf).

It is also possible that it is from "subtlety" (laṭāfah) as the opposite of "density" (kathāfah). Although this is in apparent usage among the descriptions of the body, absolute subtlety does not exist in the body, for corporeality necessitates density. Its subtlety is only by comparison; thus, it is not far-fetched that absolute subtlety can be used to describe the Absolute Light, which transcends the attainment of insights, let alone eyes; and is beyond the perception of secrets, let alone thoughts; and is exalted above resemblance to images and likenesses, and is sanctified from the indwelling of colors and shapes. For true subtlety belongs only to one of this state, and describing another by it is not absolute, but by comparison to what is below it in subtlety and described in relation to it as density.

The most probable view is that the application of "the Subtile" as the opposite of "the dense" to Allah is not a reality at all, as is clear.