Ibrāhīm (14:2-3)

Issues in the Verse

There are two main readings for the word {الله} (Allāh) in this context:

1. Nāfi‘ and Ibn ‘Āmir read it with the nominative case (Allāhu), taking it as the subject (Mubtada’), with the following phrase as its predicate (Khabar).
2. The rest read it with the genitive case (Allāhi), connecting it as an apposition (ʻAṭf) to the preceding phrase: {العزيز الحميد} (the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy).

A Deeper Discussion on the Name "Allāh":

A group of scholars holds that the word Allāh functions as a proper noun (Ism ‘Alam) specific to the Essence of God, while others argue it is a derived term (Ism Mushtaqq). We hold the former view, supported by several arguments:

1. Derived terms imply a concept that something possesses the quality from which it is derived (e.g., aswad means something that has blackness). If Allāh were derived, its meaning would be general and susceptible to partnership (i.e., others could share that derived concept). If this were true, the declaration {لا إله إلا الله} (There is no god but Allāh) would not necessitate pure monotheism, as the excluded term (Allāh) would not exclude partnership. Since the Ummah agrees this declaration necessitates pure monotheism, we know Allāh functions as a proper noun for the specific Essence.
2. When mentioning God’s attributes and names, we always begin with Allāh and then describe Him (e.g., He is Allāh, the Most Merciful, the King, the Holy). We cannot reverse this order (e.g., The Most Merciful, Allāh). This shows Allāh is the proper name for the specific Essence, and other terms denote attributes.
3. All other names of God either denote negative attributes (like Al-Quddūs, The Holy), relational attributes (like Al-Khāliq, The Creator), or essential attributes (like Al-‘Alīm, The All-Knowing), or a combination thereof. If Allāh were not the specific name for the Essence, all His names would only denote attributes, lacking a specific term for the Essence itself, which is unlikely.
4. The verse {هل تعلم له سميا} (Do you know a namesake for Him? [19:65]) implies: Do you know anyone named Allāh other than God? This confirms Allāh is the proper name for His specific Essence. Consequently, the proper order is to mention the name first, followed by attributes (e.g., He is Allāh, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner [59:24]). Reversing this order is inappropriate.

Reconciling the Readings:

Given that the nominative reading (Allāhu) is the most correct structure (as the name should precede the attributes), the genitive reading (Allāhi) presents a problem because reversing the proper order is generally disliked. Scholars offer several explanations for the genitive reading:

1. Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’ suggested it implies transposition: The intended meaning is: The path of Allāh, the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy, which has what is in the heavens...
2. It is permissible to mention an attribute first, then the name, and then another attribute, similar to saying: I passed by the esteemed Imam, Muhammad, the jurist. Here, {صراط العزيز الحميد} establishes the praiseworthy nature, and {الله الذي له...} clarifies who that All-Mighty and Praiseworthy One is, removing potential ambiguity.
3. Al-Kashshāf’s view: Allāh is a Badal (apposition/explanation) for {العزيز الحميد}. This aligns with our previous point about clarification.
4. A Hybrid View: We previously established that Allāh is derived in origin but has become a proper noun by convention. When it is used as the starting point followed by attributes, it functions as a proper noun. However, in this verse, where it is attached to {العزيز الحميد}, it is treated as a derived term (an attribute), hence the genitive case.
5. Contextual Clarification: The disbelievers sometimes describe their idols as "All-Mighty and Praiseworthy." When the verse mentioned the path of {العزيز الحميد}, the idolaters might have thought this referred to their idols. Therefore, God clarifies by saying {الله الذي له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض} (Allāh, Who owns what is in the heavens and what is on earth), specifying that the intended "All-Mighty and Praiseworthy" is indeed God.

The phrase {الله الذي له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض} (Allāh, Who owns what is in the heavens and what is on earth) proves that God is not exclusively confined to an upward direction (Jihah al-‘Uluw).

If God’s Essence were located in an upper direction, it would necessarily be located in the heavens. Since this verse states that everything in the heavens belongs to Him, it implies He would own Himself, which is impossible. Therefore, this verse proves He is transcendent from being contained in any direction, including the upward one.

Our scholars use this verse to argue that God is the Creator of human actions. Since {له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض} includes human actions (as they occur within the earth and heavens), these actions must belong to Him. Ownership implies power (Qudrah). Therefore, human actions must be within God's power. If they are within His power, they must occur by His power; otherwise, the servant would prevent God from executing His own power, which is impossible.

The phrase {له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض} implies exclusivity: what is in the heavens and earth belongs only to Him, meaning there is no owner or ruler other than God.

Immediately after establishing this absolute sovereignty, God warns the disbelievers: {وويل للكافرين من عذاب شديد} (And woe to the disbelievers from a severe punishment). The woe is because they abandoned worshipping the Owner of everything in the heavens and earth to worship things that possess no power to benefit or harm, create or be created, or possess perception or action. Woe to them for such a state! The term Wail implies crying out in distress from the severe punishment.

God then details three types of characteristics of these disbelievers who are threatened with the greatest punishment:

Type 1: Prioritizing the World

{الذين يستحبون الحياة الدنيا على الآخرة} (Those who prefer the life of this world over the Hereafter).

• Issue 1: The word {الذين} (Those who) can be treated as an adjective for the preceding disbelievers, or as a new subject (Mubtada’) with {أولئك} (Those) as the predicate, or it can be in the accusative case as an object of condemnation (Dhamm).
• Issue 2: The Meaning of Yastaḥibbūn (Preferring/Loving): Istihbāb means seeking the love of something. A person might love something but dislike being known as loving it (e.g., someone inclined to sin who hates that inclination). However, when a person loves something, seeks to be known as loving it, and loves that very love, this signifies the utmost degree of love.
  • Therefore, {يستحبون الحياة الدنيا} indicates they are at the peak of their love for worldly life. This only happens when one is heedless of the Hereafter and heedless of the flaws of this fleeting life. Such a person possesses the most blameworthy traits because this life is characterized by many defects:
    1. It opens the doors to pain, sickness, grief, worry, fear, and sorrow.
    2. Its pleasures are merely the removal of pain, unlike spiritual pleasures which are inherently blissful.
    3. Its happiness is tainted by cessation, ending, and decay.
    4. It is insignificant and meager.
  • In summary, only one heedless of its flaws and heedless of the virtues of the spiritual Hereafter loves this life. This is why God states: {والآخرة خير وأبقى} (The Hereafter is better and more enduring [87:17]).
• Issue 3: The Comparison: The phrase {على الآخرة} (over the Hereafter) implies an omission: They love the life of this world and prefer it over the Hereafter. The love for the world alone is not blameworthy unless it is coupled with preferring it over the Hereafter. If one loves the world to attain spiritual benefits or good in the Hereafter, that love is not condemned. Condemnation applies when they choose worldly things that harm their Hereafter.

Type 2: Obstructing the Path of God

{ويصدون عن سبيل الله} (And they obstruct the way of Allāh).

A person who loves the world excessively is misguided (ḍāll). A person who prevents others from reaching God’s path and religion is a misguider (muḍill). The first characteristic points to their own misguidance, and the second points to their role as misguiders of others.

Type 3: Distorting the Path

{ويبغونها عوجا} (And they seek to make it crooked).

Misguidance has two levels:

1. The first level is actively preventing others from reaching the straight path (as mentioned above).
2. The second, higher level, is actively sowing doubts and ambiguities into the true doctrine and trying to make it appear ugly through all possible stratagems. This is the ultimate level of misguidance and causing misguidance. This is what {ويبغونها عوجا} refers to. (Al-Kashshāf notes that the verb yabghūna is used transitively here, where the preposition ʻan is omitted, meaning they seek crookedness for it).

After detailing these three levels of the disbelievers' state, God describes their outcome: {أولئك فى ضلال بعيد} (Those are in a far error).

This error is described as "far" for several reasons:

1. Extreme Deviation: The error described here represents the highest degree of deviation. For two opposites to exist, they must be maximally distant (like black and white). This error, being the most complete form of deviation, is maximally distant from the truth. No stronger or more complete error can be conceived.
2. Difficulty of Return: It means their return from this path of error to guidance is extremely distant, as this deviation has become deeply entrenched in their souls.
3. Eternal Ruin: If "error" (ḍalāl) is interpreted as ruin/destruction (halāk), then "far" implies a destruction that is prolonged and unending.

14:7

{وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا بِلِسَانِ قَوْمِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُمْ ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ}

(And We did not send any messenger except [to speak] in the language of his people to make things clear to them. Then Allāh lets go astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.)

(The excerpt ends here, transitioning to the commentary on verse 7.)