Tafsir of Al-Jinn 72:28

Li-ya‘lama (so that He may know) is linked to yasluku (He dispatches) and acts as a causal factor for it. The pronoun refers to the one who is the 'Chosen Messenger,' so that he may know with a firm, fixed, and reality-aligned conviction that they (the observers/guardians) have indeed delivered—meaning, the affair has been brought to him by the observers. This is in the style of the phrasing: "The Banu Tamim killed Zayd," for the deliverer in reality is one among them, namely Gabriel, peace be upon him, as is well-known—that he is the deliverer of the messages of their Lord among the angels to the prophets. These [messages] are the Unseen, revealed as they are, without being snatched away or mixed.

On this basis, li-ya‘lama is the mubtada (subject) and the sentence annahu yasluku is its predicate. The fa (in fa-innahu) is used because the subject is a relative noun (man). Regarding His saying, Wa aḥāṭa bimā ladayhim—that is, [He encompasses] what is with the observers—and wa aḥṣā kulla shay’in ‘adadā (and has enumerated everything in numbers)—meaning, one by one. This is a ḥāl (state) for the subject of yasluku, whether implying qad (already) or without it. It is brought forth to express greater concern for the matter of His Exalted knowledge of all things and His, the Exalted, uniqueness in that, in the most perfect way, such that the angels who are the intermediaries of knowledge do not share this with Him. It is as if it were said: "However, the Chosen Messenger—Allah, the Exalted, makes him know some of the Unseen through the angels, as it pertains to his mission, while He, the Exalted, has already encompassed the knowledge of all the conditions of those intermediaries, and He, the Majestic, has known all things in a specific and detailed manner." Thus, where are the intermediaries compared to Him, the Exalted? Or, it may be a ḥāl for the subject of ublighu (they delivered), brought forth to indicate that the observers themselves neither added to nor subtracted from what they delivered. It is as if it were said: "So that the Messenger may know that the observers have delivered to him the messages of his Lord, at a time when Allah, the Exalted, has already known all their states and has known everything; so had they added or subtracted during the delivery, He, the Exalted, would have known it, and He would not have chosen them for observation and preservation."

This is what has occurred to my limited mind in interpreting these noble verses, and I wish I were certain of the matter. However, the reasoning—using His saying, "He does not disclose His Unseen to anyone," against the karamah (miraculous grace) of the saints regarding their knowledge of some of the Unseen—is not sound. This is because His saying, "He does not disclose His Unseen to anyone," is equivalent to a particular negative proposition (sālibah juz’iyyah), because the inclusion of what implies generality (ahadan) falls within the scope of the negation. Most of its usage is for the negation of generality—and it is explicitly stated here in Sharh al-Maqasid—not for the generality of negation. It is a particular negation, so it does not contradict a particular affirmation, such as the disclosure of some Unseen to a saint, in the manner some of the Sunnis said regarding His saying, "Vision cannot grasp Him."

It cannot be objected that the exception (istithna’) necessitates that the Chosen Messenger be shown all His Unseen, based on the principle that an exception from a negation necessitates the affirmation of its opposite for the excepted. The opposite of a particular negative is a universal affirmative. Furthermore, He, the Exalted, does not show anyone, whoever they may be, all of what He knows of the Unseen, because of the "interrupted exception" (istithna’ munqati’) explicitly stated by Ibn Abbas.

Similarly, it cannot be objected that Allah, the Exalted, negated the disclosure of anything of His Unseen to anyone except the Messenger, thus implying that He does not disclose any of it to any of the angels. For "the Messenger" here is clearly the human Messenger, based on the verse "For He dispatches..." and that is not except for him, as is clear to those who know the wisdom behind it. Nor does it follow that He would not disclose it to the prophets who are not messengers, based on the specific meaning intended for "Messenger" here, and for the reasons we mentioned previously. Nor does it follow that the Chosen Messenger would not be shown any of the Unseen that does not pertain to his mission, as the disclosure of such things does not violate legislative wisdom; for there is no limitation to the "some" disclosed regarding the mission. It is merely indicated that it pertains to it because the context requires it. The claim that every Unseen disclosed to the Messenger must relate to his mission is a matter of pause.

The interpreters have said much on this subject, and there is no harm in mentioning it with its pros and cons as much as possible, leaving the final judgment to you. We say: since the position of the majority of Sunnis is the affirmation of the karamah of the saint by knowing the Unseen, and the literal meaning of His saying, "Knower of the Unseen, so He does not disclose His Unseen..." indicates its negation—this is why Al-Zamakhshari said that in this is a refutation of karamat (in general, specifically those related to knowledge of the Unseen), because those to whom it is attributed, even if they are chosen saints, are not messengers, and Allah has favored the messengers among the chosen for the disclosure of the Unseen—and a refutation of soothsaying and astrology, because their practitioners are the furthest from being "chosen" and the closest to being in His displeasure. [End quote.]

They have struggled, accused, felt fortunate, and felt unfortunate in interpreting the verse in a way that does not contradict their doctrine, nor does the Mu'tazili argument against their doctrine hold up. The Imam said: "There is no formula of generality in His saying 'to His Unseen,' so it suffices for the general practice of its implications that He, the Exalted, does not disclose His creation to any one of His Unseen. Thus, we interpret it as referring to the time of the occurrence of the Resurrection, so the meaning of the verse is that He, the Exalted, does not disclose this Unseen to anyone. Therefore, the verse does not imply that He, the Exalted, does not disclose any of the Unseen to anyone." This is reinforced by the verse appearing after His saying, "Say: I do not know if what you are promised is near," where the intent is the occurrence of the Day of Resurrection.

Then he said: "If it is said, 'When you interpret this as the Resurrection, how can He, the Exalted, say "except for whom He has approved of messengers," given that He does not disclose this Unseen to any of His messengers?' We reply: Rather, He discloses it when the time for establishing the Resurrection is near. And how not, when He, the Exalted, said, 'The day the heaven will be split open with clouds and the angels will be sent down'? There is no doubt that the angels know at that time."

It is also possible that this exception is interrupted: as if it were said, "Knower of the Unseen, so He does not disclose to His Unseen—the specific one, which is the establishment of the Resurrection—to anyone." Then it is said, "Except for whom He has approved of messengers, for He dispatches from before him and from behind him observers who protect him from the evil of the insolent among jinn and mankind." [End quote.]

This has been critiqued by noting that in "His Unseen," there is that which indicates generality, as you heard earlier, and the context does not reject it—unless one challenges that. Also, the apparent meaning of his first answer to the objection is that the "Messenger" in the verse refers to the angelic Messenger, which is rejected by what follows: "For He dispatches..." Furthermore, the knowledge of the angels regarding the time of the Hour on the day the heaven splits is not "disclosing the Unseen," but rather "disclosing the Unseen and manifesting it for testimony," like revealing rain when it falls, or what is in the wombs when it is delivered. Also, the "interruption" in the manner he described is very far-fetched, as it completely severs the relationship between the preceding and the following parts. Unless one says that such [a disruption] is not harmful in an interrupted exception.

It is said that "disclosing the Unseen" means knowing it in the most perfect way, such that it results in the highest degrees of knowledge. The intent is the generality of negation, and the entry of that which implies generality into the sphere of negation is not harmful, because the rule is "for the majority, not absolute," as in His saying, "And Allah does not love any arrogant boaster." The scholar Al-Taftazani has affirmed this. Thus, the meaning is: "He does not disclose any of His Unseen to anyone, except for whom He has approved of messengers; for He, the Exalted, discloses to him some of His Unseen by dispatching..." There is no karamah for the saint, because it is not from the aforementioned disclosure, as he does not attain the highest degrees of knowledge of the Unseen that he is informed of; rather, he obtains true conjectures or the like. This is also the case for others from those who practice spiritual exercises, both disbelievers and others.

This has been critiqued by noting that some Sufis, such as Sheikh Muhyi al-Din—may his secret be sanctified—have said that the angel descends upon the saint and informs him of some unseen things at times. His descent upon him is guided by His saying, "Indeed, those who have said, 'Our Lord is Allah' and then remained on a right course..." The fact that what he obtains at that time is conjecture or the like, not knowledge like that obtained by the messenger through the angel, is not without debate. Indeed, he may obtain it through inspiration and the "blowing into the heart," similar to what the messenger obtains. Also, it would follow that He would not disclose the Unseen to the angel, since the messenger who is excepted is the human messenger, as is apparent. Insisting that He does not disclose [to the angel] in the previous sense and then disclosing through him has no basis at all. Also, it would follow that what is obtained by the prophet who is not a messenger (in the specific sense intended here) is not knowledge in the aforementioned sense, which is as you can see.

It is said that the "Unseen" in both places refers to the genus, and "disclosure" refers to what you have heard. The same applies to the lack of karamah and the debate over it.

The author of Al-Kashshaf, in refuting Al-Zamakhshari, said: "If 'Unseen' is interpreted as what His saying, 'They believe in the Unseen,' interprets it as, then the verse is an argument against him, because he allowed there that one may know by His informing or by setting up the evidence. This second part—the rational category—is what the verse denies, and it guides toward the refinement of the paths of evidence also through the prophets, peace be upon them, and the intellect is not independent. The Sunnis—all of them—agree that the Unseen in that sense is not known except by a messenger or one receiving from them, and there is no negation of karamah in it at all. If he meant that which is hidden from the senses at the time absolutely, then specification is necessary by consensus, so it does not negate it either. If it is interpreted as the non-existent, as he mentioned in His saying, 'Knower of the Unseen and the Witnessed,' then specification is also necessary. Likewise, if it is interpreted as that which is hidden from the servants, or as the secret—provided that the apparent meaning of the verse is that He, the Exalted, is the Knower of all Unseen, alone, and He does not disclose His Unseen that is peculiar to Him, which relates to His Essence and His Attributes—the Exalted—by the implication of the genitive, except to a messenger. And so it is; for His Unseen is not known except by notification from a messenger, whether angelic or human. And not all of His Unseen is revealed, but some of it, and the least of it. Thus, the implication indicates that there is no prevention of Allah, the Exalted, informing someone other than the messenger of other than this specific type of Unseen."

This is the apparent meaning of the verse without strain. Furthermore, if it is conceded, the second is either exhaustive, and when He, the Exalted, says He does not disclose all of it to anyone except whom He has approved of messengers, it does not imply that it is not permissible for other than the messenger to know some of it. Or it is absolute, which is applied to the most complete of it, and it returns to what he chose. The indications of the honor of the genitive and the absolute meaning reinforce each other, so there is no basis for hanging it on this verse. From this, it appears that the reasoning from the verse to refute soothsaying and astrology is not strong, even if refuting them is a truth we do not deny, let alone declaring someone who says it [the verse] relates to life or death as a disbeliever, for that is disbelief in this verse, as narrated by our Sheikh Al-Tayyibi from Al-Wahidi, Al-Zajjaj, and the author of Al-Matla'. [End quote.]

It has been argued that interpreting "His Unseen" as the specific Unseen—meaning what relates to His Essence and Attributes—does not fit the context. And that the apparent meaning of what he established based on the probability of being exhaustive requires, assuming the connection of the exception and the affirmation of the opposite of what was negated for the excepted, that the Messenger be shown all His Unseen, in addition to what is shown by contemplation.

The scholar Al-Baydawi mentioned first what is understood from it—according to what is said—interpreting "His Unseen" as the general sense with specialization, i.e., the generality of the Unseen specific to His knowledge, and interpreting "He does not disclose" as the negation of generality, and interpreting "Messenger" as the human messenger, and considering the exception as interrupted. The meaning being: "He does not disclose to anyone all of His Unseen, which is specific to His knowledge, except for whom He has approved of messengers; for He discloses to him some of His Unseen, so that his informing of it is a miracle." Thus, the reasoning from the verse to negate karamah does not hold. He interpreted the specialization as meaning that he does not know it by essence, but it is true, certain knowledge without cause, unlike the knowledge of others, except for Him, the Exalted. As for the knowledge of other than Him, the Exalted, of some of it, it is not knowledge of the Unseen except apparently and relative to some human beings.

It is said he intended by the Unseen specific to Him what has no evidence set up for it. The knowledge of others of it by His informing does not undermine the specialization, as it is relative to those who did not know.

Secondly, in answering the argument—and perhaps he intended the answer among the people—he stated: "Its answer is the specification of the Messenger to the angelic [messenger] and disclosure as that which occurs without an intermediary. The karamat of the saints regarding unseen things are only received from the angels, i.e., by 'blowing into the heart' and the like." Its conclusion is that the reasoning only fails if the intent of "messenger" is human and angelic, or human messenger only, and "disclosure" is disclosure via intermediary or not. Everything is prohibited, as it is possible to specify the messenger as the angelic messenger and intend by disclosure the disclosure without an intermediary. The meaning would be: "He does not disclose to His Unseen without an intermediary except the messengers of the angels." This does not contradict the disclosure of saints to His Unseen, which is only via an intermediary. This is an answer by denying the two premises, even if denying one of them suffices, as the Imam and Al-Taftazani did in Sharh al-Maqasid. This has been critiqued by noting that human messengers may also be informed without an intermediary, and the story of the Ascension and the speaking of Moses, peace be upon him, are sufficient for that.

And it has been said—after what has been said—that the strangest thing said in this position is that "except" in His saying "except for whom He has approved" is for conjunction, and the meaning is: "He does not disclose to His Unseen anyone, nor whom He has approved of messengers." Its state is as clear [as unacceptable].

Furthermore, the interpretation of His saying, "For He dispatches..." as what you have heard is what the majority of interpreters hold. The guardians who descend with Gabriel, peace be upon him, upon our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, were four, according to what Ibn al-Mundhir and a group narrated from Ibn Jubayr. Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ibn Abbas: "Allah, the Exalted, did not reveal a verse of the Quran to His Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, except that there were four angels with it guarding it until they delivered it to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace." Then he recited "Knower of the Unseen..." The revelation may have been more than that; in some reports, it is said that seventy thousand angels descended with Surat al-An'am, and similar things were said about Ayatul Kursi.

Ibn Kamal said: "A subtlety has occurred to my tired mind, rarely found in the depths of books: the intent of 'from before him' in the verse is the apparent powers, and 'from behind him' is the hidden powers. Therefore, He, the Exalted, said 'He dispatches...'—meaning He sends guardians from the angels who guard his apparent and hidden powers from the devils, and protect him from their whispers from those two directions." If the intent were guardians from the sides so that devils do not approach him during the revealing of the revelation, then he would receive something other than the revelation, or hear it and cast it to the soothsayers, who would then report it before the Messenger's report—as the author of Al-Taysir and others held—the arrangement of the speech would not be in the mentioned manner. For the expression "He dispatches" and the specification of the two directions only suit what we mentioned, not what they mentioned. [End quote.]

It is not hidden that this is a type of indication. Perhaps the expression "He dispatches" according to the interpretation of the majority is to depict the directions from which the devils come as narrow frontiers and fine paths; in that is the beauty that is in it.

Some have gone to the opinion that the pronoun in li-ya‘lama (so that He may know) refers to Allah, the Exalted, and the pronoun in ublighu (they delivered) refers to either the observers or to those who are approved of. The plural is in consideration of the meaning of man (who), just as the singular in the pronouns before it was in consideration of its wording. The meaning is: He dispatches them so that He may know that the affair has been delivered—His messages—a knowledge that entails reward, which is that He, the Exalted, knows it as existent, realized in action, as in His saying, "Until He knows those who strive." The goal in reality is the delivery and the striving. Mentioning His knowledge is to display His, the Exalted, concern for it, to signal the consequence of reward for it, and the exaggeration in urging for them both and warning against negligence in them.

His saying, wa aḥāṭa (and He encompassed), is either a conjunction to lā yuẓhiru (He does not disclose) or a ḥāl (state) for the subject of yasluku, brought to repel the illusion and establish His, the Exalted, self-sufficiency in knowledge by the delivery, from what was mentioned of dispatching the observers in the mentioned manner. Or it is a conjunction, as some claimed, to an implicit [verb], because li-ya‘lama contains the meaning of "He has known," so it becomes "He has known that, and encompassed..."

It is permitted that the pronoun in ya‘lama refers to the messenger who receives revelation, and the pronoun in ublighu refers to the observers descending to him with the revelation. It is narrated from Ibn Jubayr what supports this. Or it refers to the messengers, and wa aḥāṭa is a conjunction to ublighu or to lā yuẓhiru. From Mujahid: "So that he who denies and associates may know that the messengers have delivered." In this is a remoteness, as you can see. According to this, this knowledge does not occur—as in Al-Bahr—except in the Hereafter. It is said: "So that Iblis may know that the messengers have delivered to the jinn that the messengers have delivered what was revealed to them, and they were not the ones receiving by eavesdropping." Both statements are as you see.

‘Adadā (in numbers) is in the accusative for the collection as a distinction (tamyīz) converted from the direct object. The original is "He enumerated the number of everything," except that Abu Hayyan said there is disagreement as to whether this is fixed in the language of the Arabs. You know that the conversion in such [cases] is conceptual. It is permitted to be a ḥāl, meaning "enumerated, limited," and the indefiniteness of its owner does not harm [it] because of the generality. It may be an accusative as a verbal noun (maṣdar), meaning "encompassing." Contemplate all of that, and Allah, the Exalted, is the Guide to walking the best paths.

It was recited ‘ālim (Knower) in the accusative as praise, and ‘alima as a past tense verb. Al-ghayba in the accusative. Ibn Abbas and Zayd bin Ali recited li-yu‘lama (so it may be known) in the passive voice. Al-Zuhri and Ibn Abi Ablah recited li-yu‘lima (to make known) with a damma on the ya and a kasra on the lam from i‘lām (informing)—meaning: so that Allah, the Exalted, may inform whom He wills to inform that they have delivered. Abu Haywah recited risālāti (messages) in the singular. Ibn Abi Ablah recited wa uḥīṭa and uḥṣiya in the passive voice in both verbs, and kullun (everything) in the nominative as the deputy of the subject, and the doer is Allah, the Majestic. Thus, He, the Exalted, is the One who encompasses all conditions in knowledge, and the One who enumerates everything by number.