Al-Isra: (85) And they ask you about the spirit...

Know that when the Almighty concluded the preceding verse with: {Everyone acts according to their disposition} (Al-Isra: 84), and we mentioned that this refers to the disposition of souls corresponding to the actions emanating from them, it became necessary to investigate the nature and reality of the Rūḥ (Spirit) here. This is why they asked about the Spirit.

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: Interpretations of the Spirit Mentioned in This Verse

The most prominent opinion among the exegetes is that the Rūḥ refers to the spirit that is the cause of life.

It is narrated that the Jews told the Quraysh: "Ask Muhammad about three things. If he answers two and refrains from the third, he is a prophet: Ask him about the People of the Cave, Dhu al-Qarnayn, and the Spirit."

They asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about these three. He replied: "I will tell you tomorrow," without saying, "if Allah wills." Revelation was then withheld from him for forty days. Afterward, revelation descended: {And never say of anything, "I will do that tomorrow," * Except when Allah wills} (Al-Kahf: 23-24).

Then, he explained to them the story of the People of the Cave and the story of Dhu al-Qarnayn, but he kept the story of the Spirit vague, and the verse descended: {And they ask you about the Spirit. Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord."} (Al-Isra: 85).

Allah clarified that the intellects of creation are incapable of knowing the true nature of the Spirit, saying: {And you have not been given of knowledge except a little} (Al-Isra: 85).

Some people have criticized this narration for several reasons:

1. The Spirit is not greater than Allah: If knowing Allah is possible, or even achieved, what prevents the knowledge of the Spirit?
2. The logic of the question: The Jews suggested that if he answered the stories of the Cave and Dhu al-Qarnayn but not the Spirit, he would be a prophet. This reasoning is far from rational, as narrating stories cannot be proof of prophethood. Furthermore, if the narration is considered before his prophethood is known, they would deny it; if it is after, his prophethood is already established, making the story irrelevant. Moreover, failing to answer the nature of the Spirit does not serve as proof for the validity of his prophethood.
3. The simplicity of the question: The issue of the Spirit is known even to minor philosophers and base theologians. If the Prophet (PBUH) said he did not know it, it would lead to contempt and aversion, as ignorance of such a matter diminishes anyone, let alone the Prophet, who is the most knowledgeable of scholars.
4. The Prophet's comprehensive knowledge: Allah stated about him: {The Most Merciful. * He taught the Qur'an} (Ar-Rahman: 1-2), {And Allah conferred His favor upon you greatly} (An-Nisa: 113), and commanded: {And say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge"} (Taha: 114). The Quran itself states: {Nor is there anything green or dry but is in a clear Book} (Al-An'am: 59). The Prophet (PBUH) used to say, "Show us things as they truly are." How fitting is it for such a person to say he does not know this matter, which is famous among the masses?

Our preferred view: They asked him about the Spirit, and he answered in the best manner. The verse states they asked him about the Spirit, and questions about the Spirit can take many forms:

1. What is its essence? Is it a body, a state within a body, or an entity neither corporeal nor inherent in a body?
2. Is the Spirit ancient (eternal) or created (new)?
3. Do souls persist after the death of the bodies, or do they perish?
4. What is the reality of the happiness or misery of souls?

The phrase {And they ask you about the Spirit} does not specify which question they asked. However, Allah's response, {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"}, is only appropriate for two specific questions: the nature/essence of the Spirit and its antiquity or creation.

They asked: What is the essence and nature of the Spirit? Is it bodies generated from the mixture of humors and elements, or is it the mixture itself, or an attribute inherent in these bodies, or an entity distinct from these bodies and attributes?

Allah answered by stating it is an entity distinct from these bodies and attributes. This is because bodies arise from the mixture of elements, whereas the Spirit is not like that; rather, it is a simple, pure substance that comes into existence only by a Creator through the command {Be, and it is} (An-Nahl: 40).

They then asked: Why is it distinct from these bodies and attributes? Allah answered that it comes into existence by the command and creation of Allah, affecting the body to impart life. The lack of knowledge of its specific reality does not necessitate its negation, just as we know that vinegar has a property that cuts bile, but we do not know the specific essence of that property. Thus, most essences and realities are unknown without being negated. This is the meaning of {And you have not been given of knowledge except a little} (Al-Isra: 85).

The word Amr (affair/command) can mean action or deed, as in {And the command of Pharaoh was not rightly guided} (Hud: 97) and {Then when Our command came} (Hud: 66), meaning "Our action."

Therefore, {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"} means "The Spirit is of the action/creation of my Lord." This answer indicates they asked whether the Spirit is eternal or created. He answered that it is created, brought into existence by Allah's action, formation, and origination.

He then used {And you have not been given of knowledge except a little} as evidence for its creation. This means that spirits, at the beginning of their formation, are devoid of knowledge and understanding, then knowledge and understanding occur within them. They are constantly changing from one state to another, from deficiency to perfection. Change and transformation are signs of creation (being new).

Thus, {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"} indicates they asked if the Spirit is created, and He answered that it is created by Allah's formation. The subsequent phrase {And you have not been given of knowledge except a little} serves as proof of its created nature due to its constant change. This is our position on this matter. And Allah knows best.

Issue 2: Other Opinions on the Nature of the Spirit

People have mentioned other opinions besides the one discussed above:

1. The Spirit is the Qur'an: They argue that Allah often names the Qur'an "Spirit." The Spirit in question here must be the Qur'an.
   • Proof of naming: {And thus We have revealed to you a Spirit of Our command} (Ash-Shura: 52) and {He sends down the angels with the Spirit of His command} (An-Nahl: 2).
   • Reason for naming: The Qur'an brings life to souls and intellects by imparting knowledge of Allah, His angels, and His messengers, through which souls are truly alive. (This point was detailed in the exegesis of An-Nahl: 2).
   • Contextual relevance: The preceding verse speaks of the Qur'an: {And We send down of the Qur'an that which is healing and mercy for the believers} (Al-Isra: 82). The following verses also discuss the Qur'an, such as {And if We willed, We could take away that which We have revealed to you} (Al-Isra: 86) up to {Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants"} (Al-Isra: 88). Since the context before and after concerns the Qur'an, the Spirit here must also be the Qur'an for thematic consistency. The people were astonished by the Qur'an, asking if it was poetry or divination. Allah answered that it is not human speech but the word revealed by His command: {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"}—meaning the Qur'an appeared by my Lord's command and is not human speech.

2. The Spirit is an Angel: Specifically, the greatest angel in status and power, referred to in {The Day the Spirit and the angels will stand in ranks} (An-Naba: 38).
   • It is narrated from Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) that he is an angel with seventy thousand faces, each face having seventy thousand faces, each face having seventy thousand tongues, each tongue having seventy thousand languages, all glorifying Allah. Allah creates an angel from every glorification to fly until the Day of Resurrection. They claim Allah created nothing greater than this Spirit, except the Throne, and that it could swallow the seven heavens and the seven earths in one bite if He willed.
   • Objections:
     • If Ali knew this, the Prophet (PBUH), being more deserving of such knowledge, should have known it and informed them. Furthermore, Ali did not receive revelation, so he must have learned this detailed description from the Prophet (PBUH). Why did the Prophet (PBUH) explain it to Ali but not to others?
     • If this is one intelligent animal, multiplying tongues serves no purpose. If each language is spoken by a different animal, it is not one angel but a collection of angels.
     • This entity is unknown in existence. It is more appropriate that the question concerned the Spirit as the cause of life, which rational people seek to know.

3. The Spirit is Gabriel (Jibrīl): This is the view of Al-Hasan and Qatadah. Proof is found in Allah calling Gabriel the Spirit: {The Trustworthy Spirit descended * Upon your heart} (Ash-Shu'ara: 193-194) and {So We sent to her Our Spirit} (Maryam: 17). This is reinforced by Allah saying (regarding Gabriel): {And We do not descend except by the command of your Lord} (Maryam: 64), matching the response: {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"}. They asked the Messenger about Gabriel's essence and his role in conveying revelation.

4. The Spirit is a creation neither angelic nor human: Mujahid said the Spirit is a creation not among the angels, resembling Adam's form, eating, having hands, feet, and heads. Abu Salih said they resemble people but are not people. We find no basis in the Quran or sound reports to support this. Moreover, since this is an unknown entity, it is unlikely the question was directed toward it.

These five opinions summarize what has been mentioned regarding the Spirit in this verse. And Allah knows best the correct view.

Issue 3: Explaining the Views on the Essence of Man

It is self-evident that there is something to which a person refers when saying "I." When a person says, "I knew, understood, saw, heard, tasted, smelled, touched, or became angry," the entity referred to by "I" must be either a body, an attribute, the sum of body and attribute, something distinct from body and attribute, or a third entity. This is a rational classification.

If man is a body, that body is either this physical structure, an internal body, or an external body.

The Majority View (Most Theologians): Man is simply this perceptible body structure. They argue that defining man requires no further description beyond this perceived physical structure.

Our Refutation: This view is false. If we refute that man is merely this body and that man is perceptible, their entire argument collapses.

Arguments against Man being this Body:

1. Change in Parts: The parts of this physical frame constantly change through growth/decay and weight gain/loss. Since change necessitates difference, and the changing entity is necessarily different from the constant, unchanging entity, man cannot be merely this physical frame.
2. Inattention to the Body: When man is deeply engaged in thought or focused on a specific matter, he is heedless of all parts of his body, both collectively and individually. Yet, in that state, he is not heedless of his specific self, evidenced by saying, "I became angry," "I desired," or "I heard your speech." The pronoun 'I' refers to his specific self. Thus, he knows his specific self while being oblivious to his body structure. The known entity must differ from the whole body and its parts.
3. Attribution: Everyone attributes the body parts to the self: "My head," "my eye," "my hand," "my tongue," "my heart." The attributed entity (the parts) is distinct from the attributor (the self). Therefore, the entity that is 'man' must be distinct from the whole body and its parts.
   • Counter-argument: They might say one also says "my self" or "my essence," implying the self is attributed to itself, which is impossible (a thing being distinct from itself).
   • Rebuttal: "Self" or "essence" might refer to this specific body structure (which we deny is the essence of man), or it might refer to the specific reality indicated by "I." If the latter is meant, we deny that man can attribute that specific thing to himself by saying "my humanity," because the essence of man is that self; how can it be attributed to itself again?
4. General Arguments: Every argument proving that man cannot be a body also proves he cannot be merely this body. (These arguments will follow later).
5. Life in Death: Man can be alive while the body is dead. This is proven by the verse: {And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision} (Al 'Imran: 169). This text explicitly states those killed are alive, while sensory perception confirms the body is dead. Thus, man must be distinct from this body.

Further Proofs (6-11):

6. Verses like {The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening} (Ghafir: 46) and {Drowned, then admitted to a Fire} (Nuh: 25) indicate life after death. Hadiths stating prophets do not die but move, or that the grave is a garden of Paradise or a pit of Hell, or "Whoever dies, his Hour has come," all confirm the persistence of man after the body's death. Reason and innate disposition confirm the body is dead. If we allowed the body to be alive, all inanimate objects would be alive—which is sophistry. Since man is something, and the body is dead, man must be something other than the body.
7. A long Hadith where the deceased, while being carried on the bier, cries out to his family about gathering wealth illicitly, proving that the entity called 'man' is alive, understanding, and distinct from the dead body being carried.
8. The verse: {O tranquil soul, * Return to your Lord, content and pleasing [to Him]} (Al-Fajr: 27-28). The command "Return" is addressed at the moment of death, proving that the entity returning to Allah after the body's death is alive, content, and pleasing to Allah—which can only be man.
9. The verse: {Until, when one of you approaches death, Our messengers take him in death, and they do not fail in their duty. * Then they are returned to Allah, their true Master} (Al-An'am: 61-62). This proves that the one returned to Allah while the body is dead must be distinct from that dead body.
10. Universal Practice: All nations (Indians, Romans, Arabs, non-Arabs, Jews, Christians, Magians, Muslims) give charity and pray for their deceased and visit their graves. If the soul perished with the body, these acts would be futile. This consensus proves that their sound innate disposition testifies that man is something other than the body and that this entity does not die—only the body dies.
11. Dreams: Many people see their deceased father or son in dreams, who directs them to hidden gold or asks them to pay off a debt, and upon waking, they find the information accurate. This would not happen if man did not persist after death, proving man is distinct from the dead body.
12. Loss of Limbs: If a person loses limbs (hands, eyes, ears), the person still feels they are the same individual, saying, "They cut off my hand." This proves the person is something distinct from these parts, refuting the view that man is merely this physical structure.
13. Metamorphosis (Masc): The Quran and Hadith mention Jews being transformed into apes and pigs. If the human essence perished, it would be annihilation and creation of a pig, not transformation. If the human essence persisted in the transformed shape, then that essence remained while the physical structure changed, proving the essence is distinct from the structure.
14. Appearing in Other Forms: The Prophet (PBUH) saw Jibrīl in the form of Dahyah al-Kalbi and Iblīs in the form of an old man from Najd. Here, the human structure and form existed without the human essence being present. This proves man is not merely this structure. (This differs from the previous point where the structure was present, but the essence was absent).
15. Pain and Pleasure: A fornicator is punished on his back for an act committed with his private parts. The one experiencing pleasure and the one experiencing pain must be another entity, using the private parts for one action and the back for another.
16. Addressing Commands: When addressing Zayd, the one commanded or forbidden is not his forehead, eye, nose, or mouth, but something distinct from these parts. This entity must be distinct from the body. If they argue the whole body is commanded, the whole body must be intelligent and knowing. This is impossible unless either one single knowledge resides in the whole (impossible for multiple substrates) or each part is independently knowing (which we know is false by necessity).
17. Knowledge Location: Man must be knowing, and knowledge only occurs in the heart. Therefore, man must be the entity located in the heart. This refutes the idea that man is this structure. Man must be knowing because he is an agent of free will, which requires knowledge. We know knowledge is only in the heart through rational proof (we feel our knowledge originating from the heart) and textual evidence (e.g., {They have hearts with which they do not understand} (Al-A'raf: 179), {Allah has written faith into their hearts} (Al-Mujadila: 22), {The Trustworthy Spirit descended * Upon your heart} (Ash-Shu'ara: 193-194)).

The essence of man is something distinct from surface and color. Since everything visible is either surface or color (two certain premises), the essence of man must be invisible and imperceptible. This is a definitive proof.

Issue 4: Views of Those Who Claim Man is a Body Inside the Body

Entities in the lower world are either one of the four elements or generated from their mixture. It is impossible for a pure elemental body to exist in the human body; it must be a mixture.

• Earth-dominant bodies: Solid, dense organs like bone, cartilage, nerve, tendon, ligament, fat, flesh, and skin. No rational person claiming man is distinct from the body claims man is one of these dense, heavy, dark parts.
• Water-dominant bodies: The four humors. Some say the blood is the spirit/man because its exit causes death.
• Air/Fire-dominant bodies (Spirits):
  • Type 1: Airy bodies mixed with innate heat, generated in the heart or brain. Some say this is the Spirit/man. They differ: some say the Spirit in the heart, others say an indivisible part in the brain, and others say the Spirit is fiery particles mixed with the heart/brain spirits (this fiery heat is man).
  • Type 2: Subtle, luminous, celestial bodies, like the essence of sunlight, which does not decay or separate. When the body is formed and ready ({When I have fashioned him}), these noble celestial entities penetrate the body's organs, like fire in charcoal or sesame oil in the seed. This penetration is what is meant by {and breathed into him of My Spirit} (Sad: 72). As long as the body remains sound and receptive, life persists. When thick humors accumulate, they prevent the penetration of these noble entities, causing separation and death. (This view is considered strong and consistent with divine texts regarding life and death).
• Man as a body outside the body: I know of no one who holds this view.

No rational person holds this view, as man is necessarily a substance (Jawhar) because he is described by knowledge, power, deliberation, and action. A substance cannot be an attribute. However, one might argue that man is a substance characterized by specific attributes.

1. Physicians/Mu'tazila (Abu al-Husayn al-Basri): Man is a moderate temperament resulting from the mixture of elements in specific proportions. Humanity is bodies described by these specific elemental mixtures. They deny the soul's persistence after death.
2. Most Mu'tazila Scholars: Man is a body characterized by the attributes of life, knowledge, and power. They deny the existence of a separate Rūḥ or Nafs; there are only organized bodies possessing these attributes.
3. Man is a body characterized by life, knowledge, and power, distinguished by his physical shape. This is problematic because angels can resemble human forms (form exists without the essence), and transformed beings (apes/pigs) possess the essence of humanity without the human form. Thus, physical shape is neither necessary nor sufficient for the essence of humanity.

This is the view of most philosophical theologians who affirm the soul's persistence, spiritual reward/punishment, and spiritual reckoning. This view is held by many Muslim scholars (like Al-Raghib al-Isfahani and Al-Ghazali), some early Mu'tazila (Mu'ammar ibn 'Abbad al-Sulami), some Shi'a (Al-Shaykh al-Mufid), and some Karramiyyah.

Two Factions within this Group:

1. The Verified Scholars: Man is this specific substance (Jawhar), and the body is separate. In this case, man is neither inside nor outside the world, neither connected nor disconnected from it, but related to the body through the relationship of management and disposition (Tadbir wa Tasarruf), similar to how Allah relates to the world only through disposition.
2. The Unionists: When the soul attaches to the body, they unite, becoming one entity (the man). At death, this union dissolves, and the soul remains while the body decays.

Thabit ibn Qurra also affirmed the soul, stating it is related to subtle, luminous celestial bodies immune to corruption, which permeate the body. When this permeation ceases, the soul's connection to the body ends.

Issue 5: Rational Proofs for Affirming the Soul (Nafs)

The proponents of the soul offer several arguments, some strong and some persuasive. We present the definitive ones:

1. Premise 1: If man were a localized substance, its localization would be identical to its specific essence. If localization were a quality inherent in the substrate, then the substrate, independent of that quality, would either be localized or not. Both possibilities lead to absurdity (e.g., the substrate being localized twice, or infinite regress if localization is a quality of a quality). Thus, localization cannot be an inherent quality.
2. Premise 2: If the localization were identical to the specific essence, knowing the essence would necessarily mean knowing its localization. If the essence were known while localization remained unknown, it would imply both affirmation and negation in one thing, which is impossible.
3. Premise 3: We know our essence while being ignorant of localization (extension in directions/space). For example, when commanding a servant, "Why did you disobey my order? I will severely discipline you," one knows their specific essence, yet the concept of spatial extension or location does not cross their mind.
   • Conclusion: Since knowing the essence does not necessitate knowing localization, the essence of man cannot be a localized substance.
   • Counter-argument: If man were a pure (non-localized) substance, knowing one's essence would mean knowing one is a pure substance, which is not always the case.
   • Rebuttal: Being "pure" means being non-localized and not inherent in a localized thing. This negation is not identical to the specific essence, unlike localization, which we proved must be identical to the essence if man were a localized substance.

This proof rests on two main points:

Point A: The Soul is Necessarily One.

1. By Necessity (Intuition): Everyone intuitively knows that what they refer to as "I" is a single, non-multiple entity. Even if this single entity is composed of many things, the referred-to entity is necessarily one.
2. By Proof (Demonstration):
   • Argument 1 (Anger and Desire): Anger (a psychic state) arises when intending to repel something unpleasant, and desire arises when seeking something pleasant, conditioned by perceiving the object as pleasant or unpleasant. The faculty of anger, intended to repel the unpleasant, cannot be activated intentionally unless it perceives the object as unpleasant. Thus, the one who gets angry must be the perceiver. This proves distinct entities possess distinct perceptions.
   • Argument 2 (Interference of Faculties): If the locus of perception, thought, anger, and desire were three independent substances, the engagement of one in its activity should not prevent the others from engaging in theirs. However, engagement in desire prevents engagement in anger, and vice versa. Therefore, these faculties are not independent principles but different attributes of a single substance.
   • Argument 3 (Causality between Faculties): Perception can cause desire or anger. If the perceiving substance were different from the desiring/angry substance, the perception would have no effect on the other substance. Since perception does lead to desire/anger, the perceiver must be the same as the desirer and the angry one.
   • Argument 4 (Animal Nature): An animal is a body with a sensitive soul moving by will. Will requires perceiving good to attract or evil to repel. Thus, the one moving by will must be the perceiver of good/evil. This proves the human soul is one entity, possessing all perceptions (sight, hearing, thought, desire, anger) and all voluntary actions.

Point B: Since the Soul is One, It Cannot Be the Body or Any of Its Parts.

1. Not the Whole Body: It is self-evident that faculties like hearing, imagination, memory, thought, and knowledge are not distributed across the entire body structure. Hearing is specific to the ear, sight to the eye, speech to the throat, etc.
2. Not a Part of the Body: It is self-evident that no single part of the body is simultaneously described by sight, hearing, thought, memory, and all actions.
   • Conclusion: Since the soul is one entity possessing all these perceptions and actions, and neither the whole body nor any of its parts fits this description, the soul must be an entity distinct from the body and all its parts.

Alternative Phrasing of Proof 2: We necessarily know that when we see something, we know it; when we know it, we desire it; when we desire it, we move our bodies toward it. Therefore, the seer, the knower, the desirer, and the mover must be one entity. If they were four different entities, the seer would not know, the knower would not desire, and the desirer would not move.

Furthermore, the entity moving by will must be the sensitive perceiver. The entity perceiving all perceptions is the one performing all voluntary movements.

When we speak, we first conceive the meaning (knowledge), then intend to convey it (will), and then produce the sounds (action). If the locus of knowledge/will and the locus of sound production were the same body, then the locus of knowledge would be the throat/tongue, or the locus of sound would be the heart—both absurd. Since we established that the perceiver and mover must be one, and this entity cannot be the body or its parts, it must be a substance distinct from them, using the body parts as mere instruments (like the eye for sight, the ear for hearing, the heart for intellect).

If man were the body, life, knowledge, and power would either:

1. Reside in each part independently (making man many beings, leading to conflict between parts).
2. Reside in the whole body collectively (meaning one attribute resides in multiple substrates, which is impossible, just as one body cannot occupy multiple spaces).

Both possibilities are absurd, proving man is not this body structure.

The states of the soul are contrary to the states of the body:

1. Image Reception: A body (like wax) cannot accept a new shape without losing the old one. The soul, however, accepts intellectual forms sequentially; the more forms it accepts, the easier it accepts subsequent ones (leading to increased understanding). This difference proves the soul is not a body.
2. Effect of Thought: Deep contemplation strengthens the soul's intellectual powers but causes dryness and decay in the body, potentially leading to melancholy and death. If the soul were the body, the same thing would cause both its perfection (life) and its decay (death), which is impossible.
3. Spiritual Power vs. Physical Weakness: A physically weak person, upon receiving divine illumination, gains immense courage and authority, disregarding powerful rulers. This is only possible if the soul is distinct from the body.
4. Asceticism: Those who practice rigorous asceticism and subdue bodily desires strengthen their spiritual powers and gain divine knowledge. Those who indulge in eating and lust become like beasts, deprived of intellect. This contrast proves the soul is separate from the body.
5. Autonomy in Intellect: The soul uses bodily instruments for sensory actions (seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear). However, in matters of intellect and knowledge, it acts independently without physical instruments. One cannot stop knowing what they already know by closing their eyes or stopping their ears. Thus, the soul is self-sufficient in knowledge and understanding, independent of bodily instruments.

These five points strongly indicate the soul is not a body. (Many proofs from earlier philosophical works are omitted here for brevity).

Issue 6: Auditory Proofs that the Soul is Not a Body

1. Forgetting the Self: {And do not be like those who forgot Allah and He made them forget themselves} (Al-Hashr: 19). No rational person forgets this visible frame (the body). Therefore, the "self" that is forgotten due to extreme ignorance must be something other than the body.
2. Command to Exit: {Exit yourselves} (Al-An'am: 93). This explicitly states the soul is distinct from the body (as detailed in the exegesis of this verse).
3. Stages of Creation: Allah details the physical creation stages: {We have certainly created man from an extract of clay... Then We clothed the limbs with flesh} (Al-Mu'minun: 12-14). These are changes in physical states. When mentioning the soul's infusion, Allah says: {Then We made the drop a clinging clot...} (Al-Mu'minun: 14), explicitly distinguishing the soul's infusion from the preceding physical changes, proving the soul is distinct from the body.
   • Counter-argument: The phrase {created man from an extract of clay} implies man is partially clay.
   • Rebuttal: The preposition min (from) here signifies the beginning of the action (like "I traveled from Basra to Kufa"). Thus, the creation of man began from the clay (the mixture of elements), which aligns with our view that the mixture is formed first, then the spirit is breathed in.
4. Distinction in Infusion: {And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit} (Al-Hijr: 29). Allah distinguishes between the physical fashioning (shaping the parts and adjusting the temperament) and the breathing of the Spirit. Attributing the Spirit to Himself ({of My Spirit}) proves the essence of the Spirit is distinct from the essence of the body.
5. Inspiration of Morality: {By the soul and He Who proportioned it, * And inspired it with its wickedness and its piety} (Ash-Shams: 7-8). This confirms the existence of an entity described by perception and motivation (inspiration is perception), and by action (wickedness/piety). The body structure is not described by these two opposing moral descriptions; therefore, another substance must exist that possesses all these attributes.
6. The Tested Being: {Did We not create you from a humble fluid, * Then We placed it in a firm resting place, * Then We made it a clinging clot, * Then We made it a formed lump, * And We made him hearing and seeing} (Al-Insan: 2). This confirms man is one entity, tested by divine commands, and described by hearing and seeing. Neither the whole body nor any part is described this way. Thus, the soul is distinct from the body and its parts, possessing all these attributes.

There are numerous Hadiths describing the state of souls before attachment to bodies and after separation, all indicating the soul is something other than the body. It is astonishing that someone reads these verses and reports and then claims the Prophet (PBUH) did not know the Spirit!

Issue 7: The Verse's Indication Regarding the Spirit's Nature

The verse itself indicates that if the Spirit were a body changing from state to state, the Prophet (PBUH), when asked about it, would have had to explain its genesis—how it was one body, then became another, until it became the Spirit, just as the body's development from a drop to a clot was explained.

Since he did not do this, but rather said: {Say, "The Spirit is of the affair of my Lord"}—meaning it comes into existence only by Allah's command, {Be, and it is} (Al-Baqarah: 117)—this proves it is not a body but a pure, sacred substance. Most knowers who practice spiritual disciplines agree on this. Al-Waseti said: "Allah created the spirits from beauty and splendor; if He had not veiled them, every disbeliever would have prostrated to them."

We explained its initial attachment to the heart, from which its influence reaches all organs, in the exegesis of {The Trustworthy Spirit descended * Upon your heart, that you may be among the warners} (Ash-Shu'ara: 193-194).

Objections from Deniers:

1. If the Spirit is not a body or an attribute, it must be similar to Allah in being non-corporeal, implying similarity in essence, which is impossible.
2. The verse: {Woe to man, what has made him disbelieve? * From what thing did He create him? * From a drop of fluid He created him and determined for him; * Then He made the way easy for him; * Then He caused him to die and prepared a grave for him; * Then when He wills, He will resurrect him} (Abasa: 17-22). This explicitly states man is created from a drop, dies, is buried, and is resurrected. If man were not this physical frame, these descriptions would not apply.
3. The verse: {And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision * Rejoicing} (Al 'Imran: 169-170). This suggests the Spirit is a body because provision and rejoicing are attributes of bodies.

Rejoinders:

1. To Objection 1: Similarity in being non-corporeal and not inherent in a localized thing is similarity in a negative attribute (sālib). Similarity in negative attributes does not necessitate similarity in essence. It is gross ignorance to assume that because the Spirit shares the negative attribute of not being localized, it must be like Allah or a part of Allah.
2. To Objection 2: In common parlance, "man" refers to this physical frame, so the term is applied conventionally to the body.
3. To Objection 3: The provision mentioned refers to what strengthens their state and perfects their rank, which is the knowledge of and love for Allah. Furthermore, this is strong proof for our view: their bodies have decayed under the earth, yet Allah says their spirits reside in lamps suspended beneath the Throne. This proves the Spirit is distinct from the body.

Let this be the end of our discussion on this topic, and let us return to the exegesis.

Then Allah says: {And you have not been given of knowledge except a little} (Al-Isra: 85).

Regarding this, we mentioned two possibilities. The exegetes say that when the Prophet (PBUH) told them this, they asked, "Are we included in this address, or are you alone?" He replied: "(Rather, we and you have not been given of knowledge except a little)." They then marveled: "How strange you are, Muhammad! One moment you say, {And whoever is given wisdom - he has certainly been given much good} (Al-Baqarah: 269), and the next moment you say this!" Then the verse descended: {And if what was on the earth of trees were pens, and the sea [were ink] with seven more seas besides it to replenish it, never would the words of Allah be exhausted} (Luqman: 27) and so on.

What they mentioned is not necessary, because something can be little relative to one thing but much relative to another. The knowledge attained by people is very little compared to Allah's knowledge and the realities of things, but it is much compared to bodily desires and physical pleasures.

{And if We willed, We could take away that which We have revealed to you. Then you would find for yourself no protector against Us * Except as a mercy from your Lord. Indeed, His favor upon you has been great.} (Al-Isra: 86-87)