Tafsir of Al-A'raf 7:180

It has been said: This is an admonition to the believers regarding the manner of invoking Him, the Exalted, and the manner of dealing with those who fall short in that or are heedless of Him—glorified and exalted is He, and exalted is His majesty—following the explanation of their utter heedlessness and their immense misguidance. Another perspective on this will follow, God willing.

"Names" (al-asma'), as stated by Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali and others, refer to the coined expressions that denote various meanings. "The Most Beautiful" (al-husna) is the feminine form of "the most beautiful" (al-ahsan), which is a superlative; its meaning is that they are the most beautiful and most majestic of names, for they denote the best and most noble of meanings.

It is also said that "names" here refers to "attributes" (sifat), as in the saying, "His name has flown in the lands," meaning his reputation and description. However, the majority follow the first interpretation due to His saying, the Exalted in name: {So invoke Him by them}. This is because it is either from "invoking" (da'wah) in the sense of naming, as in the saying "I called him Zayd" (i.e., I named him), or from "supplication" (du'a) in the sense of calling out, as in the saying "I called Zayd" (i.e., I summoned him). Under both interpretations, the literal meaning of the first explanation is more fitting, as has been said.

{And leave those who deviate in His names}—meaning those who incline and veer from the truth toward falsehood regarding them. It is said, "He deviated" (alhada) when one turns away from the path and rectitude. From this comes "the side of the grave" (lahd), because it is in its side, unlike the central niche (darih), which is in its middle. Hamza read "yalhadun" here and in Surah Fussilat with a fat-hah on the lam from the triliteral root, and the meaning is the same. Abu Ubaydah narrated from al-Ahmar that alhad means "to dispute and argue," while lahada means "to incline and deviate." Al-Wahidi chose the reading of the majority, saying: "One scarcely hears 'mulhid' (deviator) used for someone who simply inclines."

Deviation in His names, glorified is He, is to name Him with that which has no divine permission (tawqif), or with that which suggests a corrupt meaning, such as the statement of the Bedouins: "O Father of Generosity," "O White-faced one," "O Generous one," and the like. Therefore, the command to "leave" means to abstain from that, and "in His names" refers to those [names] which they assigned to Him and called Him by according to their own claims, not His names in reality. On this basis, the omission of a pronoun—by saying "they deviate in them"—is abandoned. As for the claim that "names" refers to "designations" (tasmiyat) and thus the pronoun was omitted, it is baseless.

Those who interpret "deviation in names" as mentioned above believe that the names of Allah are established by divine permission (tawqifi), such that one must observe the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus. Every name that appears in these sources may be applied to Him, the Exalted, and that which does not appear may not be applied, even if its meaning is correct. Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri explicitly stated this in Mafatih al-Hujaj and Masabih al-Nahj.

In Abkar al-Afkar by al-Amidi, it is stated: The basis for the permissibility of the Most Beautiful Names is neither rational evidence nor verbal analogy. Otherwise, calling the Lord, the Exalted, a "jurist" (faqih) or "rational" ('aqil)—despite the validity of these meanings in His regard, as they imply knowledge and understanding—would be more appropriate than calling Him, the Exalted, by many things whose literal form is problematic. Rather, the basis for this is solely the application and the permission granted by the Lawgiver. Whatever He permitted, we permit; whatever He forbade, we forbid. Regarding that for which there is neither permission nor prohibition, some of our associates have claimed prohibition, but the argument for prohibition in the absence of evidence is no more valid than the other. In truth, the correct position on this is to withhold (waqf)—meaning we do not judge it as permissible or forbidden.

The approach in all of this is to follow the legal ظاهر (apparent) meanings, just as it is followed in all other rulings. It should be apparent in its indication and in its validity; it is not required for it to be definitive (qat'i), as some associates have maintained, because prohibition and permissibility are legal rulings. Distinguishing between one ruling and another by requiring "definitiveness" for one and not the other is an arbitrary act for which there is no evidence. End quote.

You know that the famous distinction is between fundamental/creedal rulings and subsidiary/practical rulings, as we shall indicate shortly, God willing. The essence of the discussion in this station is that the scholars of Islam have agreed upon the permissibility of applying names and attributes to the Creator, the Exalted, if permission has come from the Lawgiver, and upon its impossibility if a prohibition has come regarding it. They differed where there is neither permission nor prohibition regarding the permissibility of applying that which the Exalted is characterized by in its meaning, provided its application does not imply a defect but rather suggests praise. The majority of the People of Truth prohibited it absolutely due to the risk (khatar), whereas the Mu'tazilah permitted it absolutely. Judge Abu Bakr inclined toward this because of the common usage of terms like "Khuda" (God) and "Takra" without objection, thus constituting a consensus. It was countered that consensus is sufficient for legal permission, if it is proven.

The Imam of the Haramayn also objected to this, saying it is an argument by analogy (qiyas), and analogy is proof in practical matters, and names and attributes are among practical matters. Some narrated that he chose to withhold. It is mentioned in Sharh al-Mawaqif that Judge Abu Bakr held the view that every expression denoting a meaning established for Allah, the Exalted, may be applied to Him as long as it does not imply that which is unbecoming of His essence. He then said: "It may be said that it is necessary, along with the negation of that ambiguity, to imply glorification so that the application is valid without hesitation." He considered the position of the Mu'tazilah to be different from his, but the famous view is what we have mentioned.

Al-Ghazali—may his secret be sanctified—distinguished between them: he permitted the application of the "attribute" (sifah), which is that which denotes a meaning additional to the essence, and prohibited the application of the "name" (ism), which denotes the essence itself, arguing for the permissibility and desirability of truthfulness. The attribute, by containing the predicative relation, refers back to Him, and it does not depend on anything but the realization of its meaning, unlike the name, for it does not contain a predicative relation and is only for parents or those in their position. This was answered by saying that this applies where there is no obstacle to using the word denoting that relation, yet the risk remains. And how far is the dust from the Lord of Lords!

A group of later scholars chose the view of the majority. They said: One applies what has been heard (sam'i) in the form in which it was heard and does not exceed it, whether it suggests ambiguity—such as al-Sabur (the Patient), al-Shakur (the Appreciative), al-Jabbar (the Compeller), and al-Rahim (the Merciful)—or does not suggest it—such as al-Qadir (the Able) and al-'Alim (the All-Knowing). By "what has been heard" is meant that which is supported by the Book, a sound Sunnah, or consensus, for in truth, it does not depart from these, unlike weak hadith or analogy. Also, if we say that the matter is from the practical rulings, then weak Sunnah is like good (hasan) Sunnah, unless it is extremely frail; and analogy is like consensus. Some have stated the prohibition regarding analogy, which is the apparent view due to the potential of one of two synonyms suggesting ambiguity while the other does not.

Some considered synonyms from the language or languages to be among those established by analogy, but that is not strong. Among those established by consensus are al-Sani' (the Maker), al-Mawjud (the Existent), al-Wajib (the Necessary), and al-Qadim (the Eternal). It is said: al-'Illah (the Cause), and it is said: al-Sani' and al-Qadim are heard, like al-Hannan and al-Mannan. Some investigators explicitly stated that the application of a non-annexed (ghayr al-mudaf) name is prohibited if it is synonymous with an annexed name that is heard via analogy, just as the application of that which came in the form of analogy and metaphor is prohibited. They also held that the occurrence of the verb, the verbal noun, and the like does not suffice for the validity of applying the descriptive noun. Thus, al-Harith (the Tiller), al-Zari' (the Sower), al-Rami (the Thrower), al-Mustahzi' (the Mocker), al-Munzil (the Sender), and al-Makir (the Schemer) are not to be applied to Him, the Exalted, even if there are verses that suggest them.

Furthermore, there are those who said: Expressions denoting attributes are of three categories: First, those denoting necessary attributes. These are of types: some are valid to apply alone, not annexed, such as al-Mawjud, al-Azali, and al-Qadim. Others are valid to apply alone and annexed to that which is not disgraceful, such as al-Malik, al-Mawla, al-Rabb, and al-Khaliq. Others are valid only annexed, not alone, such as "O Creator of the decayed bones," and "O Reliever of stumbles."

Second, those denoting impossible attributes, such as "Hand," "Face," "Descending," and "Coming." These cannot be applied at all; even if the text mentions them, interpretation (ta'wil) becomes necessary.

Third, those denoting neither necessary nor impossible attributes, but rather denoting established meanings like "scheming," "deception," and their likes. These are not valid to apply unless there is divine permission. One should never say, "O Schemer" or "O Deceiver," even if there is mention of what denotes it, like His saying: {And they schemed, and Allah schemed}. End quote.

It is clear what is in this. Al-Tibi mentioned that the truth is to rely on divine permission for application. Every name that the Lawgiver has permitted to be used to call upon Allah, the Exalted, whether derived or underived, is a "name." Everything attributed to Him, the Exalted, other than that—whether interpreted or not—is an "attribute." He considered al-Hayy (the Living) an attribute and al-Karim (the Generous) a name, claiming that one says "O Karim" but not "O Hayy," despite both terms appearing for Him, the Exalted, in what Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi recorded from the hadith of Salman (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said: "Allah the Exalted is Living and Generous; He is shy if His servant raises his hands to Him that He should turn them back empty, until He places good in them."

He mentioned that the definite article in the names is for specificity (ahd), and that there must be a specific referent, because He, the Exalted, commanded invocation by them and forbade invocation by others, and threatened punishment for that. The two Shaykhs and others narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurairah that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Allah has ninety-nine names; whoever preserves them enters Paradise." In another narration: "whoever enumerates them." In another: "Allah has ninety-nine names, a hundred less one." This was brought for sum and emphasis so that no addition is made to what has been reported. They came numbered in some narrations by his statement (peace be upon him): "He is Allah, there is no god but He; the Merciful, the Compassionate, the King, the Holy, the Peace, the Giver of Faith, the Guardian, the Exalted, the Compeller, the Proud, the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner, the Forgiver, the Subduer, the Giver, the Provider, the Opener, the Knowing, the Restrainer, the Expander, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Honorer, the Humiliator, the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, the Judge, the Just, the Subtle, the Aware, the Forbearing, the Magnificent, the All-Forgiving, the Appreciative, the Most High, the Most Great, the Preserver, the Maintainer, the Reckoner, the Majestic, the Generous, the Watchful, the Responder, the All-Encompassing, the Wise, the Loving, the Glorious, the Resurrector, the Witness, the Truth, the Trustee, the Strong, the Firm, the Protecting Friend, the Praiseworthy, the Reckoner, the Originator, the Restorer, the Life-Giver, the Death-Giver, the Living, the Self-Subsisting, the Finder, the Noble, the One, the Eternal, the Able, the Powerful, the Advancer, the Delayer, the First, the Last, the Manifest, the Hidden, the Governor, the Most High, the Kind, the Forgiving, the Avenger, the Pardoner, the Compassionate, the Owner of Sovereignty, the Lord of Majesty and Honor, the Equitable, the Gatherer, the Self-Sufficient, the Enricher, the Withholder, the Distresser, the Benefiter, the Light, the Guide, the Originator, the Everlasting, the Inheritor, the Right-Minded, the Patient."

It is reported from the People of the House (may Allah be pleased with them) other than this, and they derived them from the Quran. There also came to us, in some narrations, things that contradict this list regarding some names.

Many scholars mentioned that some of these names return to an "actional attribute" (sifah fi'liyyah), some to a "self attribute" (sifah nafsiyyah), some to a "negative attribute" (sifah salbiyyah), and some differ as to which category they return to, such as Allah. The truth is that it is a name for the Essence, and it is the name to which all matters return. From this, the majority went to the view that it is the Greatest Name. They are divided into another classification: those which it is not permitted to apply to other than Him, the Exalted, such as Allah and al-Rahman; those which are permitted, such as al-Rahim and al-Karim; those whose mention alone is permitted, as is the case for most of them; and those whose mention alone is not permitted, such as al-Mumit (the Death-Giver) and al-Darr (the Distresser). For it is not said: "O Death-Giver, O Distresser," but rather one says: "O Life-Giver, O Death-Giver," and "O Benefiter, O Distresser."

What I see is that there is no limitation to His names—glorified are His names—to ninety-nine. This is indicated by what al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ibn Mas'ud, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever is afflicted with distress or grief, let him say: 'O Allah, I am Your servant, son of Your servant, son of Your maidservant, my forelock is in Your hand, Your command over me is accomplished, Your judgment over me is just. I ask You by every name that is Yours, by which You have named Yourself, or sent down in Your Book, or taught to one of Your creation, or have kept to Yourself in the knowledge of the unseen with You, that You make the Quran the spring of my heart, the light of my chest, the departure of my distress, and the removal of my grief.'" This is explicit in the lack of limitation due to the presence of "or."

Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi recorded the agreement of the scholars upon this, and that the intent of the hadith is to inform that these ninety-nine, whoever enumerates them enters Paradise, which does not contradict that He, the Exalted, has other names not described by this [promise]. Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi quoted from some that He, the Exalted, has a thousand names. Then he said: "And this is few," and it is as he said. From some, it is said they are four thousand, and from some of the Sufis, that they are countless.

The chosen view for me is that the application of derived names—which return to a type of self or actional attribute, as well as negative attributes—to Him, the Exalted, does not depend on specific divine permission. Rather, the application is valid without it, but only after exhaustive scrutiny and expending effort in what is clearly glorification, and extreme caution against that which suggests the slightest—the absolute slightest—defect, God forbid, in His regard, the Exalted. For we are permitted to glorify Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, with words and deeds, and no limit has been set for us in that. Whenever the application constitutes glorification of Him—mighty and majestic is He—it is permitted, and the obligation is linked to capacity: {Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity}. So after expending the effort in glorification, the constraint is removed.

The hadith of "risk" which they mention requires that only the application of that which has been proven by tawatur (mass-narration) or that upon which the Ummah has agreed, is valid. For the proof of anything else is speculative (zanni), while the risk in it is certain (yaqini). The names mentioned above are not found in many narrations, and they are famous from the hadith of al-Tirmidhi. He said: "Many people have narrated it to us from Safwan bin Salih, and we do not know it except from his hadith," and he is trustworthy according to the people of hadith. You know that this amount does not establish certainty, nor even an approximation of it. Similarly, the count of the ninety-nine by some of the People of the House—as in al-Durr al-Manthur—and others, as is not hidden from the seeker, contradicts this count. Even if the chain of that report is not as strong as the chain of this one, it at least casts doubt. Unless it is said that consensus has been reached on what is in the hadith of al-Tirmidhi, rather than what is in the hadith of another that contradicts it, but I have not encountered anyone who has claimed that.

Furthermore, these names taken from what we have mentioned: there is no obstacle to invoking Him by them, or running them as news about Him, the Exalted, or as descriptions of Him, mighty and majestic is He. All of them are "Most Beautiful." Naming them as such is from the perspective that in the meaning intended by them relative to Him, the Exalted, they are specific to Him—mighty and majestic is He—with the specificity of a name, and they are not applied to other than Him with the meaning intended at the time of their application to Allah. They are only applied to the "other" with another meaning, between which and that meaning is only what is between blackness and whiteness. For between them is the utmost distance beyond which no distance is conceivable, yet they participate in being accidents, colors, and being perceivable by sight, and other matters besides that. With this, whiteness is not considered equivalent to blackness, or vice versa, because equivalence is participation in genus and quiddity, which is missing here. Likewise, it is missing between, for example, the "knowledge" that describes Allah, the Exalted—as no one knows the reality of Allah, the Exalted, except Allah, the Exalted, in the worldly life or the Hereafter.

Yes, if someone said: "I know only Allah, the Exalted," he would be truthful, but from another perspective. The end of the knowledge of the knowers is the incapacity to know, and their knowledge of the reality is that they do not know Him. So if that is unveiled to them, they have known and reached the limit possible for the creation regarding the knowledge of Him, the Exalted.

This is what the Greatest Truthful One (al-Siddiq al-Akbar), may Allah be pleased with him, indicated when he said: "Incapacity to perceive perception is perception." Rather, this is what the Master of Mankind (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) meant by his saying: "I do not count Your praise; You are as You have praised Yourself." For he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) meant: "I do not encompass Your praises and the attributes of Your divinity; rather, You are the One who encompasses it alone," not "I know of You what I am unable to express with my tongue." The varying degrees of the Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them), the angels, and the saints in knowledge are only by their standing upon the wonders of His signs in the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and the creation of spirits and bodies. Consequently, they vary in their knowledge of the names and attributes. Knowledge that "Zayd is knowledgeable," for example, is not like knowledge of the details of his sciences, as is not hidden.

It does not refute our mention of "specificity" that their division of His names into "specific," such as al-Rahman, and "non-specific," such as al-Rahim, contradicts it. For their intent by "specific" is that which has been considered in its corresponding concept, which prevents application to other than Him. Al-Baydawi stated that the meaning of al-Rahman is the True Giver of Mercy who reaches the limit in mercy, and this does not apply to other than Him, the Exalted; thus, one is not described by it. By "non-specific" is meant that which does not have that considered in its concept; rather, a general meaning is considered in it, and it is applied to Allah, the Exalted, and to others. But at the time of its application to Him, the Exalted, the intended meaning is the perfect individual of that concept, which is not appropriate—and cannot be proven—except for Allah, mighty and majestic is He.

It may be said: There is no difference between derived names where the basis of derivation exists in the "other" in general, from the perspective that the consideration of that existence necessitates lack of specificity, and the consideration of existence in the most perfect and complete manner necessitates specificity, with no difference between one name and another. However, we have judged "specificity" in some and "non-specificity" in others due to another matter, such as usage, lack of usage, and the permission or lack of permission of the Lawgiver. So, what we have said is not refuted.

Yes, the consideration of specificity to Allah, the Exalted, in the names mentioned in the verse does not succeed on the basis that the predicate's precedence also implies restriction. So the meaning would be: "To Allah, and not to another, belong the names that are specific to Him, the Exalted, and not applied to others." That leads to the idea that the names specific to Him, the Exalted, are specific to Him—mighty and majestic is He—which is a matter that has no benefit. In that case, it is necessary either to interpret the "names" as "attributes," as some have said—and the meaning of al-husna is "the most perfect in every aspect," i.e., to Allah, not to others, belong the perfect attributes, because the attributes of other than Him, the Exalted, however they may be, are defective, at the very least because non-existence encompasses both their ends—and the meaning of {So invoke Him by them}... is "Name Him with that which is derived from them" or "Call Him by that."

{And leave those who deviate from the truth regarding His attributes}—so they name other than Him by them, or they invoke them believing in partnership. "Leave them" and "their deviation." As for the commission of a kind of metaphor, and what al-Tibi mentioned—that the definite article in the names is for specificity, to the end of what he said—it is a matter regarding which I do not think you are in doubt of its weakness. So ponder.

It is permitted that the intent of "deviation" is turning away from naming Him, the Exalted, by some of His noble names, as they said: "What is the Merciful (al-Rahman)? We know only the Rahman of Yamama." On this basis, the intent of "leaving" is abstinence, as was intended earlier. By "names" is meant His names in reality. So the meaning is: "Name Him, the Exalted, with all His names, and abstain from casting some of them out of the mix."

Or it is intended that it refers to their application to idols and deriving their names from them, like al-Lat from Allah and al-'Uzza from al-'Aziz. In this case, "names" refers to His names in reality. The use of the noun in place of the pronoun, while stripping the description in all cases, is to signify that their deviation is in the names themselves, without considering the description. The intent of "leaving" is to turn away and be unconcerned with what they have done, anticipating the descent of the punishment upon them soon, as indicated by His saying, the Exalted: {They will be recompensed for what they used to do}.

{They will be recompensed for what they used to do}—this is a new sentence occurring as an answer to an implied question, as if it were said: "Why should we not be concerned?" It was answered: "Because a punishment will soon descend upon them, and you will be healed/satisfied." The meaning based on the command to abstain is: "Abstain from their deviation so that what befalls them does not befall you, for the punishment for that will soon descend upon them."