Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:163

Tafsir of Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 163: "And your God is One God..."

The discussion regarding the meaning of the term "Ilāh" (God) has already been covered in the exegesis of Bismillāh ir-Raḥmān ir-Raḥīm. As for "al-Wāḥid" (The One), there are several issues concerning it.

Al-Abū 'Alī states that the word wāḥid functions in two ways in the Arabic language:

1. As a Noun (Ism): This is its use in counting, such as wāḥid, ithnān, thalāthah (one, two, three). In this sense, it is a noun, not an adjective, like other number names.
2. As an Adjective/Attribute (Ṣifah): This is seen in phrases like, "I passed by one man" (rajulin wāḥid) or "This is one thing" (shay'un wāḥid).

When applied to the Exalted Truth (Allah), it can be either the adjective (like al-'Ālim - The Knower, or al-Qādir - The Capable) or the noun. The first interpretation (as an attribute) is supported by the verse: {And your God is One God}.

Intellectual Clarification: Things to which "one" applies share the concept of waḥdāniyyah (oneness) but differ in the specifics of their essences (e.g., being a substance, an accident, a body, or purely abstract). The essence of a thing (e.g., being a substance) is distinct from its attribute of being one. The composite concept is different from either part alone. Thus, the word wāḥid sometimes conveys only the meaning of singularity (the noun), and sometimes it conveys singularity while qualifying something else (the adjective).

There is a difference of opinion on this:

Argument for it being an Additional Attribute: Those who affirm it as an additional attribute argue:

1. When we say, "This substance is one," the concept of "substance" is different from the concept of "one." An accident shares the concept of "one" with the substance but not the concept of "substance."
2. It is possible to conceive of something as a substance while being heedless of its oneness, and the known (the substance) is distinct from the unknown (its oneness).
3. If oneness were identical to the essence of being a substance, then saying "The substance is one" would be like saying "The substance is a substance," which is redundant.
4. The opposite of substance is accident, while the opposite of one is many. This proves that the concept of oneness is distinct.

Furthermore, oneness cannot be merely a negative attribute (negating multiplicity), because multiplicity itself is either negative or affirmative.

• If multiplicity is negative, and oneness is the negation of multiplicity, then oneness is the negation of a negation, which results in an affirmative attribute—which is what is sought.
• If multiplicity were affirmative, and oneness negated it, then oneness would be the negation of a collection of units. This would imply that a collection of non-existent things is existent, which is impossible.

Therefore, oneness is an additional, affirmative attribute. This attribute must either have reality only in the mind or have external reality. The former is false, as it would mean the mental concept does not correspond to external reality, implying the thing itself is not one in reality, which is necessarily false. We know by necessity that a thing judged as one was one in itself before any mental consideration.

Conclusion: Oneness is an affirmative attribute, additional to the essence, and subsisting in that essence.

Argument Against it being an Affirmative Attribute: Those who deny it as an affirmative attribute argue: If oneness were an additional attribute, then the units themselves would be equal in the essence of oneness but distinct by their specific determinations. This would necessitate another "oneness" for the oneness itself, leading to an infinite regress, which is impossible.

"One" refers to that which cannot be divided in the aspect by which it is called one.

• A single human cannot be divided into two humans qua human. However, it can be divided into parts or components.
• No existing thing is ever devoid of oneness, even numbers. For example, ten (as a single count) has oneness attributed to it. If we say "two tens," oneness is attributed to that pair from that perspective.

Because all existing things are characterized by oneness, some have mistakenly equated oneness with existence itself, thinking that for any existent thing, its existence is its oneness. This is incorrect, because existence itself is divisible into the one and the many, and that which is divisible is distinct from the means of its division.

The Exalted Allah is One in two respects:

1. Non-Composition of His Essence: His essence is not composed of many constituent parts.
2. Uniqueness in Existence: Nothing else in existence shares with Him the attribute of being Wājib al-Wujūd (Necessary Existent) or being the origin of all contingent beings.

A Jauhar Fard (simple atom, if proven) would be one according to the first definition but not the second.

Proof for Oneness (Aspect 1 - Non-Composition): If He were composite, His realization would depend on the realization of all His parts, and each part would be other than the whole. Every composite thing depends on something else; everything dependent on something else is contingent (mumkin) in itself but necessary due to what it depends on. Therefore, anything that is not like this (i.e., not composite and not dependent) cannot be composite. Thus, His reality is one of absolute singularity, containing no multiplicity whatsoever—neither quantitative multiplicity (like bodies) nor conceptual multiplicity (like a species composed of genus and differentia, or an individual composed of essence and particularity).

The Difficulty (Attributes): This concept is difficult for some because Allah is described as Knower, Capable, Living, Willing. Are these attributes identical to His essence, or are they additional?

• If they are identical to the essence (First Opinion): This is false for several reasons:
  1. We can conceive of His essence while being heedless of these attributes. Even if we cannot, we can certainly conceive of each attribute while being heedless of His specific essence (especially for those who hold His essence is unknowable while His attributes are known). The known is distinct from the unknown.
  2. If the attributes were the essence, saying "The essence is knowing" or "The essence is not knowing" would be like saying "The essence is the essence" or "The essence is not the essence." The former is necessarily true, while the latter is necessarily false. Since "The essence is knowing" is not self-evidently true like "The essence is the essence," the attributes must be additional.
  3. If all these attributes refer back to a single essence, then proving He is Capable should suffice to prove He is Knowing and Living. Since each attribute requires its own proof, they must refer to something other than just the essence.

Conclusion on Attributes: The attributes are additional, affirmative properties subsisting in the essence. If this is true, the Divine reality is composed of multiple things (essence + attributes), contradicting the claim that the Divine reality is one.

Further Objections to Divine Simplicity:

• Objection 1 (Trinity of Oneness): If oneness is an additional attribute to the essence, then when we consider Him as one, there are three things: the Essence, the Oneness, and the attribution of Oneness to the Essence. Where is the absolute unity?
• Objection 2 (Existence and Necessity): Is the Essence existent and necessarily existent?
  • If existent, it shares existence with other existents, yet is distinguished by its essence. This duality (existence + essence) implies multiplicity.
  • If His Wujūb (Necessity) were identical to the Essence, this would be describing the thing by itself (which is impossible for a description). Furthermore, the Essence is self-subsistent, and it is impossible for the designation "Necessary" to be self-subsistent. Thus, His necessity must be an attribute additional to the Essence, leading again to multiplicity (Essence + Necessity + Attribution).
• Objection 3 (Knowledge and Expression): Can this simple reality be spoken of or expressed?
  • If expressed, expression requires a subject (the thing spoken of) and a predicate (the expression), which are two distinct things, negating unity.
  • If it cannot be expressed, it is unknowable by affirmation or negation, meaning it is overlooked.

Answers to the Objections:

• Answer to Objection 1 (Composition): While a composite whole depends on its parts, the Divine Essence is self-subsistent and necessarily existent. Its necessity precedes, by rank, the necessity of those attributes, which follow from it. This is not rationally impossible.
• Answer to Objection 2 (Trinity of Oneness): What you state is true, but there is a difference between considering Him as He is and considering Him as being judged as one. When you consider Him as He is, ignoring the concept of oneness, you reach the reality of oneness. This is a strange state: as long as the mind attends to "oneness," it has not reached the realm of pure oneness; when it abandons the concept of oneness, it reaches it. This same logic applies to the objections regarding existence and necessity.
• Answer to Objection 4 (Expression): Expression is impossible because any expression involves relating something else to the subject, creating duality. If one expresses that it cannot be expressed, this involves a subject and a specific negation, again implying duality. True apprehension of unity is reached only when considering Him as He is, without affirming or negating anything. The only expression for this state of pure attention is the word (Hū) (He), which is why this word holds such weight among those who delve into the depths of Tawḥīd.

Revisiting Oneness (Aspect 2 - Uniqueness in Necessity): The second meaning of oneness—that nothing shares with Him the necessity of existence—is the specific oneness of the Divine Essence. Proofs for this are found in the exegesis of {If there were therein other deities besides Allāh, there would have been ruin in both} (Al-Anbiyā’: 22).

The first meaning of oneness (non-composition) is not exclusive to Allah, as contingent beings must be composed of simple units (or be simple units themselves). Therefore, the first type of oneness does not uniquely define Allah. The second type (uniqueness in necessary existence) is what He is uniquely characterized by.

Al-Jubbā'ī states Allah is described as One in four ways:

1. He is not composed of parts (a'bāḍ).
2. He is not composed of components (ajzā').
3. He is singular in eternity (al-Qidam).
4. He is singular in divinity (al-Ilāhiyyah).
5. He is singular in the attributes of His essence (e.g., knowing by Himself, capable by Himself).

Abū Hāshim combines (3) and (5) into one point. Al-Qāḍī limits the meaning in this verse solely to uniqueness in divinity, supported by the subsequent phrase: {Lā ilāha illā Huwa}.

Our Companions' View (Ash'arites): Allah is one in His essence (no counterpart), one in His attributes (no similar attributes), and one in His actions (no partner).

• One in Essence: If His specific essence could exist in another being, the distinction between them would require an additional qualifier, making Him composite (sharing the commonality and possessing the distinction), thus contingent, which is impossible. Hence, He is one in essence with no counterpart.
• One in Attributes: His attribution of attributes differs from others in several ways:
  1. All else is transient (fānī); their attributes come from others, whereas His attributes belong to Himself.
  2. The attributes of others are time-bound (as they are contingent), but His are not.
  3. His attributes are infinite in relation to their objects. His knowledge relates to all knowables, and His power to all possibilities. His knowledge of any single thing is infinitely detailed.
  4. His essence is not merely a locus for attributes, nor are the attributes what complete the essence. Since the Essence is the source of perfection, it cannot be perfected by contingent attributes. Rather, His essence is intrinsically perfect, and the realization of perfect attributes follows from that intrinsic perfection.
  5. We have no knowledge of the reality (kuhniyyah) of His attributes, just as we have no knowledge of the reality of His essence. We know His knowledge only by its effect (perfection in creation), and His power by its effect (issuing action). Thus, derived attributes point to both Him and the contingent realm simultaneously.

• One in Actions: This is evident. Everything besides Him is contingent and requires Him for existence. All contingent things—whether angels, humans, or deeds—are under His dominion, power, and control. This reveals the secret of {Indeed, We created everything according to a measure} (Al-Qamar: 49).

When the boat of thought sails into this ocean, it cannot stop, because movement implies transition from one thing to another (the first thing left behind, the second sought). If one remains in the realm of contingency and eternity, movement continues. But upon reaching the barrier between contingency and eternity, all motion ceases, and only the realization that "It is He" remains in the intellects.

Why is the possessive pronoun "Your" added? This addition is valid only for those capable of understanding and performing worship (the accountable). It is correct for all accountable beings, and potentially for all who could become accountable.

The phrase {Wa Ilāhukum} implies that the meaning of Ilāh is something to which a possessive relation can be correctly ascribed. If Ilāh meant "The Capable," the phrase would become "Your Capable is One Capable," which is weak. This proves that Ilāh means "The Worshipped."

{And your God is One God} means He is one in divinity. The placement of Wāḥid after Ilāh indicates that this oneness pertains specifically to the capacity of being the object of worship, not to other aspects. It is like saying, "The master is one master," or "The scholar is one scholar."

After establishing that our God is one, the possibility might arise that the god of others is different from our God. To remove this doubt and establish absolute Tawḥīd, the verse continues: {Lā ilāha illā Huwa} (There is no god but He).

The phrase "Lā ilāha" negates the essence (māhiyyah) of divinity. If the essence is negated, all its instances (individuals) are negated, because if any instance existed, the essence would exist, contradicting the negation. Thus, "Lā ilāha" implies a comprehensive, universal negation. Adding "illā Allāh" (except Allah) then establishes perfect, complete Tawḥīd.

Linguistic Debates on {Lā ilāha illā Huwa}:

1. Omission (Ḥadhf): Some grammarians suggest an omission, such as "There is no god for us except Allah," or "There is no god in existence except Allah."
   • If the first is assumed ("no god for us"), it only affirms the oneness of our God, not the absolute oneness of the Divine, making it redundant after the previous verse.
   • If the second is assumed ("no god in existence"), the objection of redundancy is removed. However, this negates the existence of a second god, whereas the literal reading negates the essence of a second god. Negating the essence is stronger in pure Tawḥīd than negating existence. Therefore, adhering to the literal meaning without assuming omission is preferable.
   • Can the essence be negated? Yes. If you say "Blackness does not exist," you negate existence, and existence itself is an essence. If you negate the essence of existence, you can negate the essence of divinity.

2. Order of Negation and Affirmation: Intellectually, the concept of negation (non-existence) follows the concept of affirmation (existence). Why, then, does the verse present negation first (Lā ilāha) followed by affirmation (illā Huwa)?
   • Answer: The order is reversed for the specific purpose of establishing Tawḥīd and negating partners and rivals.

3. The Pronoun {Huwa} (He):
   • Linguistic Aspect: Pronouns are categorized as explicit (denoting specific essences like 'blackness') or implicit (denoting the speaker 'I', the addressee 'You', or the absent 'He'). The order of certainty is: 'I' (most certain), then 'You', then 'He' (most distant from immediate apprehension).
   • Metaphysical Aspect: Perfect knowledge of anything is achieved by knowing it in itself, not through another. The perfect knowledge of God is achieved only when He speaks of Himself as 'I' (Anā), which is the most certain pronoun. Since no one else can reach this reality using the most certain pronoun, perfect knowledge of Him is unique to Him.

The Unionists (Ittiḥādiyyah): Some allow for union when human spirits are illuminated by divine knowledge, enabling the knower to say, "I am God." This is rejected because union implies either annihilation of one party (not union) or the persistence of two distinct entities (not unity).

The Path of the Pronouns: Since the path of 'I' is closed, the remaining paths are 'You' and 'He'.

• 'You' (Anta): This is for those present in states of unveiling and witnessing (like Prophet Yunus, peace be upon him, who called out, {Lā ilāha illā Anta}). It signifies complete self-effacement from all worldly concerns.
• 'He' (Huwa): This is for those in absence (the general state).

Why 'Huwa' is the Most Noble Name:

1. General vs. Specific Names: General names (like Raḥmān, 'Alīm) denote concepts that allow for partnership (e.g., the concept of knowledge is shared). Since Allah's essence precludes partnership, these derived names do not truly refer to His specific essence. Proper names (like 'He' or 'You') function like pointing signs, which are superior to derived concepts. 'You' refers to the present, 'He' to the absent.
2. Inaccessibility of Essence: Since the Divine Essence is absolutely simple and free from all composition, it cannot be described (as description implies difference between subject and predicate) or reported upon (as reporting implies a subject and a predicate). All derived names fail to reach the reality of the Essence. 'Huwa' alone reaches the essence of that singular reality, making it superior.
3. Relation to Contingency: Derived names (like Knower, Capable) are understood only by observing their effects in the contingent realm (e.g., knowledge is understood via the order in creation). Thus, these names refer to both Allah and the contingent realm simultaneously. Looking at two things means one is incomplete. These names become veils. 'Huwa', however, refers to Him as He is, independent of any relation to the contingent realm, cutting off all else.
4. Source vs. Manifestation: Proofs show that the source of glory and might is the Essence itself, which necessitates attributes due to its perfection. 'Huwa' leads directly to this source (the Essence), while other names stop at the level of attributes and descriptions.

Grammarians state that 'Huwa' is in the nominative case because it is an appositive substitute (badal) for the implied subject of the negative particle Lā (i.e., "There is no god [existent] except Him"). This contrasts with affirmative sentences like "No man came except Zayd," where Zayd is nominative as a substitute for the implied subject of illā. If the sentence were affirmative ("Zayd came except..."), it would be impossible.

The meaning of these two names has been covered: Mercy (Raḥmah) in relation to Allah means Blessing (Ni'mah), and the Actor is the Merciful (Rāḥim).

• Raḥīm (Merciful) implies a multiplicity of mercy (many blessings).
• Raḥmān (The Most Merciful) implies the absolute, ultimate degree of mercy, which belongs only to Him.

Significance of Mentioning Them Here: The declaration of the singular, sovereign Divinity (Ilāh Wāḥid) conveys majesty, power, and loftiness. Following this with the superlative mercy (Ar-Raḥmān Ar-Raḥīm) serves to comfort the hearts from the awe of this Divine Majesty, signaling that His Mercy precedes His Wrath, and that He created creation only for mercy and beneficence.

{Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships which run through the sea with that which benefits people, and what Allāh has sent down of rain from the sky and given life therewith to the earth after its lifelessness, and scattered therein all kinds of moving creatures, and in the changing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the heaven and the earth—indeed are signs for a people who use reason.}

This verse lists profound signs in the cosmos and natural phenomena, all pointing to the existence, power, and wisdom of the One God, for those who employ their intellects (ya'qilūn).