Al-Baqarah: (133-134) Am kuntum shuhadā’...

After recounting how Abraham (peace be upon him) strongly enjoined his sons concerning the religion of Islam, God immediately mentions that Jacob also enjoined the same upon his sons. This serves to reinforce the argument against the Jews and Christians and to elaborate the point further. There are several issues to discuss here:

Issue 1: The Meaning of Am (أم)

The word am (أم) is a particle of interrogation, or a conjunction, similar to aw (أو). It functions in two ways: connected (muttasilah) or disjunctive (munqati'ah).

1. Connected Am: If you ask, "Is Zayd with you, am is 'Amr with you?" (أزيد عندك أم عمرو؟), you are uncertain which of the two is present and are asking for specification. The answer will be a simple "yes" or "no" regarding the presence of one of them, or a specification of who is present. In this case, am means "which one?"

2. Disjunctive Am: This type means "but rather" (بل) accompanied by a Hamzat al-Istifhām (interrogative particle). For example, if someone initially thought something was a camel (إبل) and stated it, but then doubted and wished to retract the statement and ask if it was a sheep (شاء) instead, they might say: "It is not, but rather is it a sheep?" (إنها لا بل أم شاء). The bal (بل) signifies the retraction of the first statement, and the am signifies the new question. The phrase following am is a new, independent clause.

The Quran contains examples of both types:

• Connected: ${ \text{A-shaddu khalqan am as-samā’u banāhā} } (Are you harder to create, or is the heaven that He constructed?) (An-Nāzi'āt: 27). Meaning: Which of the two is harder?
• Disjunctive: { \text{Alif Lām Mīm. Tanzīlu l-kitābi lā rayba fīhi min rabbi l-‘ālamīn. Am yaqūlūna iftarāh?} } (Alif Lām Mīm. The revelation of the Book, wherein there is no doubt, is from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say, "He has fabricated it"?) (As-Sajdah: 1-3). This implies: "No, rather, do they say he fabricated it?"—a retraction of the previous statement followed by a new question.

Some commentators incorrectly claim that the disjunctive am here is equivalent only to the Hamza, but this is incorrect because the disjunctive am incorporates the meaning of bal (بل).

Given this preamble, we ask: Is the am in this verse connected or disjunctive?

The preferred view is that it is disjunctive (munqati'ah). The address is to the People of the Book, as if God is saying: "You claim that the religion you follow is the religion of the Prophets. How can you say this when you are aware of the Prophets' testaments to the religion of Abraham? If you had witnessed this, you would have abandoned your current religion and inclined toward the religion of Muhammad (peace be upon him), which is precisely what Abraham, Jacob, and all subsequent Prophets were upon."

Objection: The interrogative particle used for denial (inkār) should only apply to a false statement. What Jacob said was true, so how can the denial be directed at it?

Response: The denial (inkār) is directed solely at their claim of being present at Jacob's death. God denies their presence at that time. What follows—Jacob's statement, { \text{Mā ta‘budūna min ba‘dī} } (What will you worship after me?)—is a detailed account of the testament itself. God denies their presence, and then explains the nature of that testament.

The second view holds that am is connected (muttasilah). This requires assuming a deleted preceding phrase, such as: "Do you attribute Judaism to the Prophets, or were you present when Jacob was dying?" Meaning: Your ancestors among the Children of Israel witnessed him calling his sons to the religion of Islam and monotheism. Since you know this, why do you attribute to the Prophets things from which they were innocent?

Regarding the phrase { \text{Idh qāla li-banihi} } (When he said to his sons)

There are two issues here:

Al-Qaffāl stated that the first idh refers to the time of their alleged witnessing (the time of death), and the second idh refers to the time of the actual saying (the time of the testament).

This verse indicates that the Prophets' compassion for their children was focused entirely on matters of religion, with their primary concern directed toward it above all else.

Regarding the phrase { \text{Mā ta‘budūna min ba‘dī} } (What will you worship after me?)

There are two issues here:

Why is the word mā (which typically refers to non-rational beings) used for the object of true worship?

Response 1: Mā is general and can refer to anything; the meaning is "What thing will you worship?" Response 2: It is like asking when seeking a definition or boundary: "What is man?" (i.e., defining the essence of what is worshipped).

There are two issues here:

This verse is used by two ignorant groups:

1. The Muqallidūn (Those who follow blindly): They argue that Jacob's sons were content with mere imitation (taqlīd), and since Jacob did not reject this, it proves that taqlīd is sufficient.
2. The Ta‘līmiyyūn (Those who insist on instruction): They argue that the only way to know God is through the teaching of a Messenger, Imam, or proof. They point out that the sons did not say, "We worship the God indicated by reason," but rather, "We worship your God and the God of your fathers." This proves that the path to knowledge is learning/instruction.

The Response: Just as the verse does not prove they knew God through rational proof, it also does not prove they only affirmed God through imitation or instruction. Since the claims of taqlīd and instruction have been refuted by evidence, we know that their faith was based on inference (istidlāl).

The question remains: Why did they not mention the method of inference?

Responses:

1. It is more concise than explaining the attributes of God (His Oneness, Knowledge, Power, Justice).
2. It was closer to reassuring Jacob's soul. They essentially said, "We are following your path; there is no disagreement between us regarding what we worship and to Whom we dedicate worship."
3. Perhaps it alludes to the proof of the Creator's existence, as mentioned earlier in the Sūrah: { \text{Yā ayyuhā n-nāsu u‘budū rabbakum alladhī khalaqakum...} } (O people, worship your Lord who created you...). In this context, their statement means: "We worship the God whose existence is proven by your existence and the existence of your fathers." This interpretation points toward inference (istidlāl), not imitation.

Al-Qaffāl narrated that when Jacob entered Egypt, he saw its people worshipping fire and idols. Fearing for his sons after his death, he said this to them to urge them to adhere to the worship of God. Al-Qāḍī narrated from Ibn 'Abbās that Jacob gathered them at the time of death, and they were worshipping idols and fire. He asked them, "What will you worship after me?" They replied, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers."

Al-Qāḍī found this narration distant for two reasons:

1. They immediately confessed monotheism with the promptness of those who already possess knowledge and certainty.
2. God mentioned in the Book that the tribes (descendants of Jacob) were righteous people, which does not align with them worshipping idols and fire at that time.

This phrase is an apposition (‘aṭf bayān) clarifying "your fathers." Al-Qaffāl said that Ishmael was mentioned before Isaac because Ishmael was older than Isaac.

Imām Ash-Shāfi‘ī (may God be pleased with him) held that siblings (full or paternal half-siblings) are not excluded by the grandfather. This is the view of 'Umar, 'Uthmān, 'Alī, 'Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, and Zayd (may God be pleased with them), as well as Mālik and Abū Yūsuf and Muhammad (the two companions of Abū Hanīfah).

Abū Hanīfah held that they are excluded by the grandfather. This is the view of Abū Bakr As-Ṣiddīq, Ibn 'Abbās, and 'Ā’ishah (may God be pleased with them), and among the Tābi‘īn, Al-Ḥasan and Ṭāwūs and ‘Aṭā’.

The first group (those who say siblings are not excluded) have two opinions:

1. The grandfather receives the better of two options: either sharing with the siblings or taking one-third of the entire estate, with the remainder distributed among the siblings according to the male receiving a share equal to that of two females. This is the view of Zayd ibn Thābit and Ash-Shāfi‘ī.
2. The grandfather is treated like one of the brothers, unless sharing with them reduces his share below one-sixth. If sharing reduces it below one-sixth, he receives one-sixth, and nothing is taken from it.

Abū Hanīfah argued based on the premise that the grandfather is a father, and a father excludes siblings; therefore, the grandfather must also exclude them. We establish that the grandfather is a father based on the verse and the narration:

• The Verse: { \text{na‘budu ilāhaka wa ilāha ābā’ika Ibrāhīma wa Ismā‘īla wa Isḥāqa} }. The word ābā’ (fathers) is applied to the grandfather (Jacob) and his ancestors.
• The Narration: 'Aṭā' narrated from Ibn 'Abbās that he said: "Whoever wishes, I will engage in mula‘anah (mutual cursing) with him by the Black Stone: The grandfather is a father." He also said: "Beware! May God not have mercy on Zayd ibn Thābit, who makes the son of a son into a son, but does not make the father of the father a father!"

If it is established that the grandfather is a father, he must fall under the ruling { \text{wa warithahu abawāhu fa-li-ummihi ath-thuluth} } (And his parents inherit from him; so his mother has one-third), meaning the grandfather takes two-thirds, excluding the siblings, just as the father does when present.

Ash-Shāfi‘ī's Counter-Argument (That the Grandfather is NOT a Father):

1. Just as you use these verses to prove the grandfather is a father, we use the verse { \text{wa waṣṣā bihā Ibrāhīmu banīhi wa Ya‘qūb} } (And Abraham enjoined this upon his sons, and so did Jacob) (Al-Baqarah: 132). God did not include Jacob among the sons because He distinguished him from them. If the ascending line in paternity were truly a father, then the descending line would truly be a son. Since this is not the case, the grandfather is not a true father.
2. If the grandfather were a true father, it would be invalid for someone whose father died while his grandfather was alive to deny having a father, just as it is invalid for someone whose father is alive. Since this denial is valid, we know he is not a true father.
   • Objection: The name Abū (father) applies to both, but the nearer rank is closer than the farther rank, justifying the denial.
   • Response: If the name were truly applicable to both, the order of existence would not justify denying the name of father to him.
3. If the grandfather were a true father, it would be valid to say that someone died leaving behind many fathers, which no jurist or linguist has ever stated.
4. If the grandfather were a father, and the Companions knew the language well, they would not have differed on his inheritance. If the grandfather were a father, the grandmother would be a mother, and there would have been no confusion regarding the grandmother's inheritance requiring Abū Bakr to ask about it.
5. God says: { \text{Yūṣīkumullāhu fī awlādikum li-dh-dhakari mithlu ḥaẓẓi l-unthayayn} } (Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females) (An-Nisā’: 11). If the grandfather were a father, the son of the son would necessarily be a son, and according to this verse, the grandson would inherit even while the son is present. Since this does not happen, the grandfather is not a father.

Responding to the Verses Used by the Opponents:

1. Abī read it as { \text{wa ilāha Ibrāhīma} } omitting ābā’ika, but a rare reading does not override a transmitted one.
2. The word Ab (father) is used metaphorically for the uncle, as the Prophet (PBUH) said regarding Al-'Abbās: "This is the remnant of my fathers," and "Return [the property] to my father." This indicates metaphorical usage, proven by the fact that the name Ab can be negated from the grandfather.
3. As for Ibn 'Abbās's statement, he used the name based on the legal ruling (ḥukm shar‘ī), not the linguistic meaning, as linguistic terms are not disputed among native speakers.

Regarding the phrase { \text{ilāhan wāḥidan} } (One God)

This is an apposition to { \text{ilāha ābā’ika} }, like { \text{bi-n-nāṣiyati, nāṣiyatan kādhibatan} } (by the forelock, a lying forelock) (Al-'Alaq: 15-16). Or it is for specification: "By the God of your fathers, you mean One God."

Regarding the phrase { \text{wa naḥnu lahū muslimūn} } (And we are submitting to Him)

There are several interpretations:

1. It is a ḥāl (circumstantial clause) describing the subject of na‘budu (we worship), or its object, referring back to the pronoun hu (Him).
2. It can be a clause coordinated with na‘budu.
3. It is an emphatic parenthetical clause, meaning: "And it is our state that we are sincerely submitting to the Oneness of God, or acknowledging it."

Regarding the phrase { \text{Tilka ummatun qad khalat} } (That was a nation that had passed away)

This refers to those mentioned previously: Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his monotheistic sons. Ummah means a group or class. Khalat means passed, gone by, or extinct. The meaning is: I have recounted their stories and their adherence to Islam and their call to it. You gain no benefit from their conduct unless you do what they did. If you do, you benefit; if you refuse, you do not benefit from their actions. This verse indicates several issues:

The phrase { \text{lahā mā kasabat} } (To it belongs what it has earned) indicates that each person's earning is exclusive to them, and no one else benefits from it. If taqlīd were permissible, the earning of the leader would benefit the follower. It is as if God says: I did not mention their stories so that you would imitate them, but so that you would be alerted to your obligations, deduce the truth, and realize that their religion was the truth.

The verse encourages them toward faith and following Muhammad (PBUH), and warns them against opposing him.

The verse indicates that sons are not rewarded for the obedience of their fathers, contrary to the Jewish claim that the righteousness of their fathers benefits them. This is supported by the Prophet's saying: "O Ṣafiyyah, aunt of Muhammad, O Fāṭimah, daughter of Muhammad, bring me your deeds on the Day of Resurrection, not your lineage, for I cannot avail you anything against God." And: "Whoever is delayed by his deeds, his lineage will not hasten him." Also, { \text{falā ansāba baynahum yawma’idhin wa lā yatasā’alūn} } (No genealogy will there be between them that Day, nor will they ask after one another) (Al-Mu’minūn: 101), and { \text{laysa bi-amāniyyikum wa lā amāniyyi ahli l-kitāb man ya‘mal sū’an yujza bihi} } (It will not be by your wishes nor the wishes of the People of the Scripture. Whoever does evil will be recompensed for it) (An-Nisā’: 123). Likewise, { \text{wa lā taziru wāziratun wizra ukhrā} }$ (And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another) (Al-An‘ām: 164).

The verse refutes those who say that sons are punished for the disbelief of their fathers. The Jews claimed they would only be punished for a few days due to their worship of the Calf, which God refuted here.

The verse indicates that the servant is the acquirer (muktasib). The Sunnis and Mu'tazilites differed on the meaning of kasb.

Sunni View: They agree that the servant's acquisition does not mean creating an attribute from non-existence into existence through their power. They offer three interpretations of kasb:

1. Al-Ash‘arī: Power is an attribute related to the object, without the power having an effect on the object. Both the power and the object are created by God, just as knowledge and the known are created by God. The thing created by God that is related to the contingent power is the kasb.
2. Abū Bakr Al-Bāqillānī: The essence of the action is brought into existence by God's power. Then, the quality of it being an act of obedience or disobedience is attached to that action, and this quality is established by the contingent power.
3. Abū Isḥāq Al-Isfarā’īnī (attributed): The contingent power and the eternal power, when both relate to one object, result in the object's occurrence. It is as if the servant's action occurred with God's assistance; this is the kasb.

Mu'tazilite View (Those who believe contingent power is effective): They are divided into two groups:

1. Power with the Motive necessitates the action: God creates everything in the sense that He established the causes leading to these actions coming into existence. The servant is the acquirer in the sense that the effective agent in the occurrence of his action is the power and the motive residing in him. This is the view of Imam Al-Ḥaramayn, chosen in his book An-Nizāmiyyah. Abū Al-Ḥusayn Al-Baṣrī’s view is close to this, though not explicitly stated.
2. Power with the Motive does NOT necessitate the action: The servant is capable of doing or leaving the action; if he wills, he does it; if he wills, he leaves it. This action/leaving is the kasb.

The Mu'tazilites argued against Al-Ash‘arī: If the servant's potential action occurs by God's creation, then at that moment, it is impossible for the servant not to be characterized by that action. If God does not create it in him, it is impossible for him to be characterized by it. If so, he is never capable of doing or leaving, and "capable" means nothing else. Thus, the servant is never truly capable. Furthermore, this acquired action either occurs by God's power (in which case the servant has no effect, so how is he the acquirer?), or it occurs by the servant's power (which is what is sought), or by both powers (which is impossible, as God's power is self-sufficient in causing effects).

The views of Al-Bāqillānī and Al-Isfarā’īnī are considered weak by the Mu'tazilites because God's power is self-sufficient in causing effects, leaving no room for the servant's power to have an effect alongside it.

Sunni Rebuttal (Against the Servant being independently effective):

1. If the servant were the creator of his actions, he would know the details of his action, but he does not know those details. Thus, he is not the creator.
2. If the servant were the creator of his own action, only what the servant intended would occur. This is not the case, as the disbeliever intends to gain knowledge but only achieves ignorance.
3. If the servant were the creator of his action, his creating it would be an existence added to the essence of the action and the essence of power, because we can conceive of the action's essence and the power's essence while being heedless of the servant being the creator. This creating existence is contingent. If its contingency is due to the servant, it requires another creator, leading to infinite regress (impossible). If it is due to God, the effect must necessarily stem from God, as His existence is eternal, making His creating power eternal, thus not requiring another creator.

This summarizes the arguments from both sides, with many disputes over terminology and meaning. God guides.

7 < { Wa qālū kūmū yahūdan aw naṣārā tahtadū. Qul bal millata Ibrāhīma ḥanīfā. Wa mā kāna mina l-mushrikīn } > 7 !

And they said, "Be Jews or Christians and you will be guided." Say, "Rather, [we follow] the religion of Abraham, inclining to truth, and he was not of the polytheists."