Tafsir of Al-Anfal 8:44

"And when He showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes." The [grammatical] case is estimated with a hidden [verb]; it is addressed to all of them by way of talwin (shifting the mode of address) and ta'mim (generalization). It is conjoined to what precedes it. The pronoun in yurikumu-hum (He shows them to you) is the object, and qalilan (few) is a state (hal) of the second [object]. Allah—Exalted is He—made them appear few in the eyes of the believers so that Ibn Mas'ud—may Allah be pleased with him—said to the person next to him, "Do you see them as seventy?" He replied, "I see them as a hundred," as a means of confirming them and verifying the word of His Messenger—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

"And [He made you appear] as few in their eyes." So much so that Abu Jahl said, "The companions of Muhammad—may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him—are but a morsel for a camel." This minimizing occurred at the beginning of the affair, before the fighting engaged, so that they would become emboldened against them and neglect to prepare or seek reinforcements. Then, He—Exalted is He—increased their number until they saw them as twice their own number, so that the multitude would take them by surprise, causing them to be struck with bewilderment and dread.

"So that Allah might accomplish a matter already ordained, and to Allah are all matters returned." It is repeated due to the difference in the action for which the cause is given; for in the first instance, it refers to their gathering without a prior appointment, while here it refers to their being made to appear few and then many. Or, it is because the "matter" mentioned there refers to the meeting in the manner described, while here it refers to the exaltation of Islam and its people and the abasement of polytheism and its faction.

Furthermore, more than one [scholar] has mentioned that what occurred in this event were among the greatest of signs. Although sight may sometimes perceive the many as few and the few as many, it does not happen in that manner or to that extent. This is only conceivable through the veiling of the eyes from perceiving some rather than others, despite the equality of conditions. An objection has been raised that the stated cause is appropriate for minimizing the many, but not for increasing the few. The answer given is that the increasing of the few from the side of the believers is by the angels—peace be upon them—and from the side of the disbelievers, it is a reality; thus, it does not require an explanation in either case, whereas the minimizing of the many is what requires one.

Al-Kashshaf mentions two ways for the many to be perceived as few: that Allah—Exalted is He—veils some of them with a cover, or that He causes a state in their eyes whereby they deem the many as few, just as He created in the eyes of the cross-eyed (ahwal) [the perception] whereby they deem the few as many, seeing one as two. Upon this, it may be said that their seeing the believers as twice their number is of the same category as the perception of the cross-eyed; indeed, it is greater, assuming it is meant that they saw them as twice themselves. In that case, there is no need to resort to the discourse regarding the sight of the angels with the believers.

In al-Intisaf, it is stated that this is clear evidence that He—Exalted is He—is the One who creates perception in the sensory faculty, and it is not contingent upon a cause such as alignment, proximity, the lifting of veils, or otherwise. For if these causes were necessarily and rationally mandatory for vision, it would be impossible for some to be hidden from them while they perceived others, given that the cause [of vision] would be shared. Thus, it is permissible for Allah—Exalted is He—to create perception while these causes are absent, and it is permissible for Him not to create it while they are present. There is, therefore, no binding link between vision and these [causes] regarding the power of Allah—Exalted is He. This is a refutation of the Qadariyyah who deny His vision due to the absence of its "condition," namely, corporeality and the like. This verse is sufficient to invalidate their claim, yet they pass by it while turning away.

Moreover, the vision of the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—was, according to Ali, of the same nature as the vision of his companions—may Allah be pleased with them—of the polytheists. Some investigators mentioned that it was in the realm of interpretation (ta'bir), so it does not necessarily follow that it must be contrary to reality; "fewness" is interpreted as "being defeated." Of the visions that occur, some occur exactly as seen, and some are interpreted and allegorized. A verification of this topic requires breadth, so be vigilant and listen to what is recited:

Know that the human rational soul is the sovereign of the bodily faculties and they are its instruments. It is evident that bodily faculties grow weary with much activity, like a sword that grows dull with much cutting. Thus, when the soul uses the outer faculties excessively to the point where weariness befalls them, it suspends them so they may rest and regain strength, just as a horseman, when he rides his horse too much, releases it to rest and graze. This suspension resulting from the relaxation of the cerebral nerves connected to the instruments of perception is sleep, and what is seen therein is the dream (ru'ya).

However, the theologians, the Peripatetic philosophers, the qualified Illuminationists, and the Sufis have differed regarding its reality into several schools of thought. The Mu'tazilah and the majority of the Sunni theologians maintained that dreams are false imaginations. Their reasoning—according to the Mu'tazilah—is the lack of conditions for perception in the state of sleep, such as alignment, the diffusion of light rays, the interposition of the shaghaf (pericardium), and the specific structure, in addition to other conditions considered essential for perception by them. As for the group [of Sunnis], though they do not stipulate all those conditions, they hold that perception in a state of sleep is contrary to habit, and since sleep is the opposite of perception, they cannot coincide; therefore, a dream is not a true perception.

Professor Abu Ishaq said: A dream is a true perception, for there is no difference between what a sleeper finds within himself—such as sight, hearing, taste, and other perceptions—and what a person awake finds of his own perceptions. If it were permissible to doubt what the sleeper finds, it would be permissible to doubt what the awake person finds, which would lead to sophistry and the disparagement of matters whose reality is known by intuition (badihah). He did not disagree that sleep is the opposite of perception, but he posited that perceptions are sustained by a part of the human being other than that which supports sleep, so the combination of two opposites in one location does not necessarily follow.

The Peripatetics held that the perceived object in sleep exists in the "common sense" (al-hiss al-mushtarak), which is the tablet and receptacle of perceived objects. When the outer senses take in the forms of external objects and convey them to the common sense, those forms become witnessed there. Then, the "imaginative faculty" (al-quwwah al-mutakhayyilah), whose nature is to combine forms, may combine a form that is then imprinted onto the common sense and becomes witnessed just as an external form is witnessed. The basis of witnessing is the imprint on the common sense, whether it descends to it from the outside or from the inside.

Furthermore, it is the nature of the imaginative faculty to constantly form images; it does not rest in sleep or wakefulness. If left to its nature, it would not cease from drawing images on the common sense, but two things distract it from this: first, the influx of images from the outside upon the common sense—for once it is inscribed with this image, it cannot be inscribed with the image the imaginative faculty composes; and second, the dominance of the intellect or the estimative faculty (wahm) over it in precision when they use it for their own perceptions. There is no doubt that these two distractors cease during sleep, so it becomes capable of being inscribed with images from the inside. Thus, what the sleeper perceives are images inscribed in the common sense and existing therein; this is the dream.

Some of these are true and some are false. The true [dreams] are those in which images reach the common sense from the rational soul. The explanation is that the forms of all events—what has been and what will be—are inscribed in the higher principles, which those of the Sharia refer to as angels, and are imprinted upon the celestial disembodied souls. The connection of the disembodied soul to the disembodied is stronger, due to the similarity of species, than its connection to bodily faculties. Therefore, it is its nature to connect to that [higher principle] and be inscribed with what is therein. However, its preoccupation with the outer and inner senses and its absorption in managing its body prevent it from that connection and inscription, because the soul's preoccupation with some of its activities prevents it from occupying itself with others; for the One whom no affair distracts from another is Allah, the One, the Subduer.

It is impossible to remove this obstacle entirely, but its preoccupation with sensory perceptions subsides in the state of sleep. In wakefulness, the ruh (spirit) spreads to the exterior of the body via the arteries and flows to the outer senses during the state of diffusion, whereby perception is achieved, and the soul becomes occupied with those perceptions. As for sleep, which is the brother of death, the ruh is confined to the interior and recedes from the outer senses after its flow toward them, so they become suspended. The soul then obtains a minimum of leisure, and it connects to those principles with a spiritual, immaterial connection and is inscribed with some of what is in them for which it has become prepared—like mirrors if some are placed parallel to others, so that what is inscribed in one is reflected in the others to the extent possible.

Thus, the soul perceives from what is inscribed in those principles what is suitable for it, concerning its own conditions and the conditions of those associated with it—relatives, family, children, region, and country—both past and future. However, since this perception does not come from the side of the senses, it is general, so the imaginative faculty—which is created to mimic what comes to it—simulates it with particular, ideal, imaginative images appropriate to it. It simulates what is good for it in a beautiful image, and what is evil in an ugly, terrifying image, in varying degrees and different modes.

Hence, it may see itself in a beautiful form—both formal and spiritual—of beauty, knowledge, generosity, courage, and other praiseworthy attributes; and it may see itself possessing the opposites of these. It may even see those attributes in the form of what those attributes have overcome. Indeed, it may see itself as having become a different species due to the dominance of its attributes upon it. Whenever beautiful attributes and praiseworthy morals dominate it, it sees beautiful images and virtuous persons, such as those of beauty, scholars, saints, and angels; it may even see that it has become an angel or a sage, for example. And when blameworthy attributes dominate it, it sees terrifying images, such as the image of a ghoul or a beast.

Similarly, the vision of the state of one associated with it—such as family, children, or region—it sees them in consideration of varying ranks and associations, as they are in the past, present, or future. Even if it is concerned with the interests of people, it sees them. If its intention is drawn toward rational truths, things pertaining to them appear to it. When there is no difference between that image and that from which it is taken except for generality and particularity, the dream does not require interpretation (ta'bir) or passing over to what is appropriate by way of analogy or opposition, as required by the nature of friendship, creation, celestial causes, and other hidden aspects that only individuals among the masters of interpretation perceive.

But if it is contrary to it due to a deficiency that occurs in the imaginative faculty—either by its own nature, or because of the onset of confusion and bewilderment from what it sees, or other reasons—it requires interpretation. This is for the interpreter to trace the steps backward, stripping away what the sleeper saw from those images created by the imaginative faculty, until he arrives, through one or more stages, to what the soul received from those principles, which is the reality.

It sometimes happens, especially if the dreamer is deeply concerned with the dream, that he interprets his dream in the same sleep in which he saw it, or in another. This is either by his remembering what the dream was a representation of, or by the imaginative faculty depicting the narrative of his dream with another narrative, in which case it requires two interpretations.

As for the second [category of dreams], it concerns things where:

1. The soul, having felt during wakefulness—through the medium of bodily instruments—particular sensory or imaginative forms which remained stored in the faculty of imagination, then, during sleep—when the common sense is freed from what comes to it from the outer senses—they are inscribed in the common sense, either as they were or in a suitable form.
2. Or because the soul has perfected, through the imaginative faculty, a form to which it is accustomed, so upon sleep, it is represented in the common sense.
3. Or because the temperament of the brain changes, so the temperament of the ruh carrying the imaginative faculty changes, and the actions of the imaginative faculty change according to these shifts. That is why the sanguine person sees red things; the choleric, fires and rays; the melancholic, mountains and smoke; and the phlegmatic, water and white colors. Of this category is seeing one's body or some of its organs in snow, water, or fire when heat or cold dominates it, or seeing that one is eating, drinking, or urinating when the need for one of these arises.

Among the wonders in this chapter is that if semen accumulates and nature needs to expel it, it resorts, with the help of the imaginative faculty, to depicting what facilitates its expulsion in the form of pleasant images, and [causes] the sending of the wind that distributes to the organ of copulation, inducing its movements until what it intended to expel is expelled. Sometimes this orientation and habituation are not due to the accumulation of semen, which is why nothing may be expelled.

Sometimes the ruh experiences disturbance and agitation from external and internal causes, so it sees changing, scattered, and unorganized matters. Perhaps a form is composed from the total that is unheard of, which one rarely conceives or which never occurs in reality. This may also be due to celestial alignments and heavenly positions. If the dream is for one of these reasons, it is called "confused dreams" (adghath ahlam); it has no interpretation and does not come to pass.

They have mentioned that the most truthful of people in dreams are those with the most balanced temperament. Whoever, along with that, is detached from distracting attachments and corrupt imaginations, is accustomed to truthfulness, and is focused on the dream and its verification and quality, his dream is more correct, truthful, and frequent. The dreams of a liar, the intoxicated, the grief-stricken, and those dominated by a bad temperament, excessive thought, corrupt imaginations, or the exigencies of the irascible and concupiscible faculties are false and not to be relied upon. Hence, they say: No reliance is to be placed on the dream of a poet, due to his habituation to false lies and corrupt imaginations.

Some of the masters of unveiling (mukashafat) and owners of direct witnessing among the qualified philosophers and the Sufis—who deny that images are imprinted in the imagination—have maintained that a dream is the soul's witnessing of imaginative images existing in the "world of similitudes" ('alam al-mithal), which is an isthmus (barzakh) between the world of subtle disembodied entities—called by them the "world of sovereignty" (al-malakut)—and the world of dense, concrete existents—called the "world of dominion" (al-mulk).

They said: Within it are existing, individualized entities corresponding to what is in the outside of particulars, represented as standing by themselves, appropriate to the two aforementioned worlds. As for the world of dominion (al-mulk), it is because they are bodily, phantom-like images. And as for the world of sovereignty (al-malakut), it is because they are suspended, not related to place or direction like disembodied entities; so much so that one may see ideal images of a single person in multiple mirrors, indeed in multiple locations, just as some saints are seen at one time in multiple places, eastern and western.

These images have different places of manifestation, such as mirrors, clear water, and the bodily faculties—especially the inner ones—when they are cut off from preoccupation with the external, distracting matters. For by that, they obtain an increase in suitability for that world, just as those disembodied from human attachments do. When that suitability strengthens, as with the Prophets—peace be upon them—and the perfect saints—may Allah sanctify their secrets—they appear in the outer faculties as well. This is why the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—would witness Gabriel—peace be upon him—when he descended with the Revelation, while the companions—may Allah be pleased with them—who were around him did not witness him.

This having been said, the statement of the theologians—that dreams are false imaginations—has been challenged on the grounds that the Book and the Sunnah have testified to their truth; indeed, there is no person who has not experienced it himself in a way that necessitates belief in it. The answer given is that their intent is that the sleeper's imagining that he is perceiving by sight is "vision," and his imagining that he is perceiving by hearing is "hearing," is false [in reality]; this does not negate that it is a sign for certain matters.

The Proof of Islam, al-Ghazali—may mercy be upon him—mentioned in the explanation of the saying of the Prophet—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: "Whoever sees me in a dream has seen me"—that the intent of his saying, "has seen me," is not the vision of the body, but the vision of the similitude (mithal) which became an instrument by which the meaning that is in his self is conveyed to him. He then mentioned that the soul is not the imagined similitude; thus, the seen form is not his spirit—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—nor his person, but rather his similitude in reality. Likewise, the vision of Him—Exalted is He—in a dream; for His Essence—Exalted is He—is transcendent above form and image, but His—Exalted is He—definitions reach the servant by way of a perceived similitude of light or otherwise, and it is truly an instrument in being a medium for definition. So when the dreamer says, "I saw Allah—Exalted is He—in a dream," he does not mean that he saw His Essence—Exalted is He. He also said: "Whoever sees him—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—in a dream does not intend the vision of him in reality with his person deposited in the Garden of Medina, but the vision of his similitude, which is a similitude of his holy spirit—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him."

It is said: From here, another answer to the problem is learned, which is that their intent is that what is seen in a dream does not have a fixed reality in the self-same matter, just as what is seen in wakefulness is the same. Rather, it is an imagined similitude that Allah—Exalted is He—manifests to the soul in a dream, just as He manifests to it the unseen matters after death; for sleep and death are two brothers. Describing what was mentioned as "false" is perhaps in the category of the world being described as such in the saying of Labid: Know that everything except Allah is false.

You know that what the Proof of Islam mentioned is not something upon which all his scholars have agreed; for a group has held that seeing him—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—in his known description is a perception in reality, and in any other description, it is a perception of the similitude. Furthermore, the speech of the theologians is clearly contrary to the Book and the Sunnah, and its interpretation is barely free from something [problematic], so reflect. Perhaps the turn will lead to mentioning additional speech in this station.

In sum, denying the dream absolutely is not in its place. How could it be, when what has come in its praise has come? In Sahih Muslim: "O people, nothing remains of the glad tidings of Prophethood except the righteous dream, which a Muslim sees or is seen for him." And it has come in most narrations that it is a part of forty-six parts. The explanation for this is that he—peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—acted upon it for six months at the beginning of the revelation, and the revelation continued to descend upon him for twenty-three years. This does not work with the narration of forty-five, nor with the narration of seventy parts, or the narration of seventy-six—which is weak—or the narration of twenty-six, which Ibn 'Abd al-Barr mentioned, or the narration of al-Nawawi of twenty-four. And Allah—Exalted is He—knows best.