Surah An-Nahl: Verses 61–64

Context

After recounting the great disbelief and ugly speech of the polytheists, God (Exalted is He) clarifies that He grants them respite and does not immediately punish them, demonstrating His grace, mercy, and generosity.

In this section, there are several issues to consider:

Those who challenge the infallibility of the Prophets (PBUH) use the verse: "And if Allah were to impose punishment upon the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon it any living creature." (16:61) in two ways:

1. First Argument: God attributes the wrongdoing (ẓulm) to all people (an-nās). Since wrongdoing involves sin, this implies that every human being commits sins and transgressions. Prophets are people, so they must also commit sins and transgressions.
2. Second Argument: God states, "He would not have left upon it [the Earth] any living creature." This implies that everyone on Earth is a wrongdoer. If God were to annihilate every wrongdoer, it would necessitate the annihilation of all people. However, if we assert that the Prophets (PBUH) committed no wrongdoing, then they would not be subject to annihilation. This means that annihilating all wrongdoers would not necessarily annihilate everyone, contradicting the verse's implication that everyone is a wrongdoer. Therefore, all humans, including Prophets, must be wrongdoers.

The Response: It is established by proof that not all people are wrongdoers. God states: "Then We caused to inherit the Book those We chose of Our servants. And among them are those who wrong themselves, and among them are those who are moderate, and among them are those who are foremost in good deeds." (35:32). This verse divides people into three categories: the self-wrongdoer, the moderate, and the foremost in good deeds. If the moderate and the foremost were also considered wrongdoers, this division would be meaningless. Thus, it is proven that the moderate and the foremost are not wrongdoers.

If this is established, then the "people" (an-nās) mentioned in the verse "And if Allah were to impose punishment upon the people..." either refers to:

1. All sinners deserving punishment, OR
2. The specific disbelievers mentioned (the polytheists who attributed daughters to God).

In either case, the argument against the infallibility of Prophets fails. (And Allah knows best.)

Some scholars use this verse to argue that the default ruling regarding harm (maḍārri) is prohibition. They reason: If harm were legislated, it would either be:

1. A penalty for a prior crime, OR
2. Not a penalty for a prior crime (i.e., legislated ab initio).

Both possibilities are refuted, so harm must not be legislated at all.

Refutation of the First Case (Harm as Penalty): The argument relies on two points regarding "And if Allah were to impose punishment upon the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon it any living creature."

1. The particle law (if) implies the non-existence of the consequence due to the non-existence of the condition. Thus, the verse implies that God did not punish them for their wrongdoing, and He did leave living creatures on Earth.
2. Since the verse establishes that punishing people for their wrongdoing necessitates the annihilation of all creatures, and we observe that God has left many creatures on Earth, it is definitively proven that God does not punish people for their wrongdoing (in this manner). Therefore, harm cannot be legislated as a penalty for past crimes.

Refutation of the Second Case (Harm Legislated Ab Initio): That harm should be legislated without being a penalty for a prior sin is refuted by consensus (ijmāʿ).

Therefore, the implication of this verse is the absolute prohibition of harm. This is further supported by other verses and traditions:

• "And do not cause corruption in the land after it has been set right." (7:56)
• "And He has not placed upon you any difficulty in religion." (22:78)
• "Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship." (2:185)
• The Hadith: "There should be neither inflicting harm nor reciprocating harm in Islam."
• The Hadith: "Cursed is he who harms a Muslim."

Thus, based on these verses and narrations, the default principle is the prohibition of harm. If an event occurs involving harm in every aspect, we check for a specific text permitting it. If a specific text exists, we apply it (giving precedence to the specific over the general). Otherwise, we rule it prohibited based on this established principle.

Further Implications: Some scholars argue this principle implies that whatever a person desires must be granted to them, because preventing it constitutes harm, and harm is prohibited. Similarly, whatever a person dislikes must be forbidden, because its occurrence is harm, and harm is prohibited. This principle, therefore, covers all possible occurrences until the Day of Judgment. Furthermore, analogy (qiyās) used to establish rulings must either conform to this principle (which is redundant) or contradict it (which is invalid because the explicit text overrides analogy). (And Allah knows best.)

The Mu'tazila argue that this verse proves that wrongdoing and sins are not acts of God, but rather acts of the servants.

1. God attributes the wrongdoing to the servants ("...upon the people for their wrongdoing"), but does not attribute it to Himself.
2. If the sins were created by God, then punishing the servants for them would constitute wrongdoing on God's part. Since God forbids wrongdoing for His servants in this verse, He must be far above committing it Himself.
3. The verse also indicates that their actions necessitate reward and punishment, as the bāʾ (in bi-ẓulmihim) denotes causality, similar to "That is because they opposed Allah." (8:13).

Note: The discussion on these issues has been frequently covered elsewhere, so we will not repeat it here. (And Allah knows best.)

The apparent meaning of the verse suggests that people's commission of wrongdoing necessitates the destruction of all living creatures. This is deemed impermissible because animals have committed no sin. How can they be destroyed due to human wrongdoing?

Response (Two Approaches):

Approach A: Accepting the scope includes all animals:

1. First View (Al-Jubā’ī): The intended meaning is that if God punished them for their disbelief and sin, their lives would be hastened to an end, and their lineage would cease. Since everyone alive has an ancestor who deserved punishment, if they were all destroyed, their offspring would cease, meaning no humans would remain. If humans cease, animals must also cease, as animals were created for human benefit. This is a subtle and excellent interpretation.
2. Second View: When destruction descends due to wrongdoing, it affects all people and animals. For the wrongdoers, it is punishment; for the others, it is a trial (imtiḥān). This occurred during the time of Noah (PBUH).
3. Third View: If God punished them, rainfall would cease, leading to the cessation of vegetation, and thus no creature could remain. Narrations support this: Abu Hurayrah heard a man say that the wrongdoer only harms himself, to which he replied: "No, by God! Even the ḥubārā (a type of bird) in its nest dies because of the wrongdoer's sin." Ibn Mas'ud said: "The beetle almost perished in its burrow due to the sin of Adam's son."

Approach B: Reinterpreting the term "creature" (dābbah): The term dābbah (living creature) here means unbeliever (kāfir). Evidence for this is the verse: "Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray." (7:179). (And Allah knows best.)

The pronoun ʿalayhā (upon it) refers to the Earth, which was not explicitly mentioned before. However, the mention of dābbah (creature that walks/crawls) implies the Earth, as creatures walk upon it. It is common in Arabic to use a pronoun for the Earth without prior mention, as in phrases like "So-and-so is upon it" (meaning on Earth).

Then God says: "But He postpones them until a specified term." (16:62). This postponement is so they may procreate. There are two interpretations for this specified term:

1. First Opinion (ʿAṭā’ from Ibn ʿAbbās): It refers to the term of the Resurrection.
2. Second Opinion: It refers to the end of their lifespan (death). The rationale for the first view is that the greatest punishment will befall them on the Day of Resurrection. The rationale for the second view is that the polytheists will be punished when their lives end and they exit the world.

Third Type of False Sayings Mentioned by the Disbelievers

God recounts another false statement they made: "And they assign to Allah that which they dislike." (16:63).

The meaning is that they assigned daughters to Allah, whom they disliked for themselves. The word yajʿalūn (they assign/make) means they describe God with this attribute and rule this for Him, similar to the verse: "Allah has not made any baḥīrah or sā’ibah..." (5:103).

Then God says: "And their tongues describe the lie that they will have the best [outcome]."

Al-Farrā’ and Al-Zajjāj state that the word an (that) is in the accusative case because it is an appositive (badal) to al-kadhib (the lie). The structure is: "And their tongues describe that they will have the best outcome."

There are three interpretations for "al-Ḥusnā" (the best/most beautiful outcome) here:

1. It refers to sons; meaning they said: "To God are the daughters, and for us are the sons."
2. They claim that despite attributing daughters to God, they themselves have attained God's pleasure due to this statement, believing they are on the true and good path.
3. They decreed for themselves Paradise and reward from God.

Objection: How could they decree Paradise for themselves when they denied the Resurrection? Response: Not all of them denied the Resurrection. Some Arabs affirmed the Resurrection and would tie their finest camel to the grave of the deceased, leaving it until it died, believing the deceased would be resurrected with their mount. Even if they denied the Resurrection, perhaps they said: "If Muhammad is truthful about the Resurrection, then we will attain Paradise and reward because of this true religion we follow." Some scholars prefer this third interpretation, supported by the subsequent verse: "No doubt, for them is the Fire." God refuted their claim by affirming the Fire for them, indicating they had claimed Paradise for themselves.

Al-Zajjāj suggests there is no refutation (radd); rather, the meaning is: "The matter is not as they describe; the consequence (jirm) of that statement is the Fire for them." In this case, an is accusative because the verb kasaba (acquired/earned) applies to it. Quṭrub suggests an is in the nominative case, meaning: "The Fire is due to them." Regardless of the grammar, the meaning is that the Fire is rightfully theirs and must occur.

Regarding "and that they are the ones who will be sent forth (mufaṛriṭūn)": Nāfiʿ and Qutaybah (from Al-Kisā’ī) read it with a kasra on the rā’ (mufarriṭūn). The rest read it with a fatḥa (mufarriṭūn).

Reading with Kasra (mufarriṭūn): Al-Farrā’ explains this means they were excessive (mufarriṭīn) in sins against themselves, or they exaggerated in fabricating lies against God. Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī suggests it is derived from afraṭa (to become afflicted with), like ajraba (to become afflicted with scabies). Meaning: they are characterized by excess leading to the Fire, as if they sent someone ahead to prepare places for them there.

Reading with Fatḥa (mufarriṭūn):

1. First View: It means they are left behind in the Fire. Al-Kisā’ī says: "I did not afraṭa anyone from the people," meaning I did not leave anyone behind. Al-Farrā’ says Arabs say: "I afraṭtu people," meaning I left them behind or forgot them.
2. Second View: It means they are hastened (muʿajjilūn). Al-Wāḥidī prefers this view. Abū Zayd and others state that farraṭa means to precede someone to water to prepare buckets and ropes. Thus, mufaṛriṭūn means they have preceded others to the Fire, so they are the farraṭ (precursors) for those who will enter after them.

God then clarifies that this behavior exhibited by the Quraysh polytheists was also exhibited by previous nations toward the earlier Prophets (PBUH): "By Allah, We certainly sent messengers before you, but Satan made their deeds seem attractive to them." (16:64). This serves as a consolation (tasliyah) for the Prophet (PBUH) regarding the distress caused by the ignorance of his people.

Mu'tazila Argument: This verse proves the falsehood of the doctrine of al-Mujbirah (predestination) in several ways:

1. If God were the creator of their deeds, there would be no benefit in Satan making them seem attractive.
2. If Satan's beautification were created by God, Satan should not be blamed for it.
3. Beautification is what invites one to an action. If the action itself is created by God, it becomes necessary, so the beautification is not an invitation.
4. If God is the Creator of the action, He is more deserving of being their guardian (walī) than the one who merely invited them.
5. God attributes the beautification to Satan. If God were the beautifier, attributing it to Satan would be a lie.

Response: If Satan is the one who beautifies evil deeds in the eyes of the disbelievers, then if another devil beautifies those whispers in Satan's eyes, it leads to an infinite regress (tasalsul). If God is the one who beautifies those whispers in Satan's eyes, then God is the desired entity (the Creator of the act).

Then God says: "So he is their protector today." (16:64). There are two possibilities:

1. It refers to the disbelievers of Mecca. "So he is their protector today" means Satan is their protector, continuing to mislead them away from you, just as he did to the disbelievers of previous nations. This shifts the context back to the disbelievers of Mecca.
2. The "Day" refers to the Day of Resurrection. God says He is the protector of those who disbelieved by beautifying their deeds on the Day of Resurrection. The term "Day" is used for the Resurrection due to its fame. The intent of "So he is their protector today" is that they will have no protector or helper that Day. When they witness the punishment descending upon Satan just as it descends upon them, and see that he has no escape, they will be mocked by being told: "This is your protector today."

Despite this severe warning, God establishes the proof and removes the excuse: "And We did not send down to you the Book except to make clear to them that wherein they differed, and as guidance and mercy..." (16:65).

Issues Regarding Verse 65

Response: Since reason has established the impossibility of true causality (in the sense of necessity), this must be interpreted metaphorically (ta’wīl).

Verses 66–67

"And indeed, for you in the livestock is a lesson. We give you drink of what is in their bellies—from between what is in their intestines and what is in their blood—pure milk, palatable to drinkers. And from the fruits of the palm trees and grapevines you take from it intoxicants and provision. Indeed, in that is a sign for a people who use reason." (16:66–67)

(The text transitions here to the next section, which is not fully provided in the excerpt for translation, but the verses are quoted.)