Al-Baqarah (The Cow): (286) Allah does not burden...

Issues in the Verse

It is possible that the statement {Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity} is:

1. A direct statement from Allah (God).
2. A narration of what the Messenger and the believers said, following the preceding context: {They said, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination"} (2:285). They also said, {Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity}. This is supported by what follows: {Our Lord, do not impose upon us what we cannot bear} (2:286). It is as if Allah narrated their manner of adhering to faith and righteous deeds, and included among those descriptions their description of their Lord as one who does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.

If we hold that this is the speech of the believers: The cohesion is that when they said {We hear and we obey}, it is as if they meant: How could we not hear and obey, when Allah, by the grace of His divine mercy, only requires of us what is within our capacity and ability? If He does not demand anything but what is easy and light, then we, by the duty of servitude, must be obedient hearers.

If we hold that this is the speech of Allah: The cohesion is that after they said {We hear and we obey} and then {Our Lord, [we seek] Your forgiveness}, this indicates that their request for forgiveness was for shortcomings they committed intentionally. Since their statement {Your forgiveness} was a plea for pardon regarding such shortcomings, Allah, in response, lightened the burden upon them and said: {Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity}. The meaning is: If you hear and obey, and you do not intentionally fall short, then if any shortcoming occurs due to forgetfulness or heedlessness, do not fear it, for Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. In summary, this is a response to their supplication in {Our Lord, [we seek] Your forgiveness}.

The term kallaftuhu (I burdened him) is used, and kalf (burden) is derived from it. Al-Wus'a (capacity) is what a person can encompass without it being tight or causing distress. Al-Farrā' said it is a noun like al-wijd (finding) and al-juhd (effort). Some said al-wus'a is less severe in hardship than al-majhūd (what requires utmost effort), and it is what is within a person's ability.

The Mu'tazila relied on this verse to assert that Allah does not command a servant with what he cannot endure or accomplish. This is supported by verses like {and He has not placed upon you in religion any difficulty} (22:78), {Allah intends for you ease} (4:28), and {Allah intends for you ease}. They claim this verse explicitly negates commanding the unbearable.

If this is established, they posit two principles:

1. The servant creates his own actions: If Allah were the creator of the servant's actions, then commanding the servant to perform the action would be commanding the unbearable. If Allah creates the action, it must occur, and the servant has absolutely no power over that action or its omission. He has no power over the action because it occurred by Allah's power, and what exists cannot be created a second time. He has no power to repel it because his power is weaker than Allah's power. If Allah does not create the action, it is impossible for the servant to have the power to bring it about. Thus, if Allah created the servant's action, commanding the servant to perform it would be commanding the unbearable.
2. Ability (Istita'a) precedes the action: Otherwise, the disbeliever commanded to believe would not be capable of believing, making the command an imposition of the unbearable. This concludes the Mu'tazila's argument here.

The Ash'arites (Aṣḥāb) responded: Rational proofs have indicated that divine command occurs in this manner, so we must resort to interpreting this verse.

Argument 1 (Against the Mu'tazila): A person who dies in disbelief proves that Allah eternally knew he would die in disbelief and never believe. Since knowledge of non-belief existed, and knowledge of non-belief contradicts the existence of belief (as established elsewhere), commanding him to believe while knowing he won't believe is commanding the conjunction of two opposites. This argument applies equally to determinism (Jabr).

Argument 2 (Against the Mu'tazila): The occurrence of an action by the servant depends on a dā'iya (inclination/motive), and that dā'iya is created by Allah. If this is the case, commanding the unbearable is necessary. We say the action depends on the dā'iya because the servant's power is equally capable of action and omission. If one side were favored without a preponderant cause (murajjiḥ), it would imply an effect without a cause, which negates the Creator. We say the dā'iya is from Allah because if it were from the servant, its creation would require another dā'iya, leading to infinite regress. If the preponderant dā'iya exists, the other side becomes less likely (marjūḥ) and impossible to occur. Thus, the favored side becomes necessary. Therefore, the issuance of belief from a disbeliever becomes impossible, yet he is commanded to do it, making the command unbearable.

Argument 3 (Against the Mu'tazila): The command is either directed when the two motives are equal, or when one is preponderant. If equal, commanding the preponderant is commanding the conjunction of two opposites (since equality contradicts preference). If one is preponderant, the favored is necessary, and the disfavored is impossible. If commanded the favored, it's a command of the necessary. If commanded the disfavored, it's a command of the impossible.

Argument 4 (Against the Mu'tazila): Allah commanded Abu Lahab to believe. Belief is affirming everything Allah informs about. Allah informed that Abu Lahab would not believe. Thus, Abu Lahab was commanded to believe that he would not believe—a command of the unbearable.

Argument 5 (Against the Mu'tazila): The servant is not aware of the details of his action. For instance, one moving a finger does not know the exact number of micro-movements and rests involved, as the slow movement is composed of alternating movements and rests, which the servant does not consciously track. If he is not aware of the details, he is not the creator of them, as he did not intend to create that specific number of actions. If he performed that exact number, neither more nor less, it implies preference of the possible without a preponderant cause, which is impossible. Thus, the servant is not the creator, and if he is not the creator, commanding the unbearable is necessary, as you claim.

These are decisive rational arguments in this matter. Therefore, we know this verse must have an interpretation (ta'wīl).

Interpretations (Ways to reconcile the verse with Ash'ari doctrine):

The First Way (The most sound): When there is a conflict between a decisive rational proof and an apparent textual meaning (ẓāhir sam'ī), one cannot affirm both (as that combines opposites), nor deny both (as that negates both). One must deny the decisive rational proof and affirm the apparent textual meaning. However, affirming the textual meaning would open the door to criticism of rational proofs, which would invalidate Tawhid (Monotheism), Prophethood, and the Qur'an. Therefore, one must affirm the rational proofs and interpret the apparent textual meaning. This is the method the Mu'tazila always use to refute apparent meanings cited by the anthropomorphists (Tashbīh). Thus, we know this verse must have an interpretation, whether we know it specifically or not, and we do not need to delve into the details.

The Second Way: The meaning of command and prohibition in Amr and Nahy is merely informing that if one does X, he is rewarded, and if he doesn't, he is punished. If the apparent command exists, and the commanded act is possible, it is a true command. Otherwise, it is not truly a command, but rather information about the punishment descending in the Hereafter, signaling that he was created for the Fire.

The Third Way (Held by some early determinists): As long as a person has not died, we do not know if Allah eternally knew he would die in disbelief or not. Thus, we are doubtful about the existence of an impediment, so we command him to believe and urge him toward it. If he dies in disbelief, we know after his death that the impediment existed for him. Thus, the condition for the command was absent during his life.

The Fourth Way (Weak): We have explained that {Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity} is not the speech of Allah, but the speech of the believers, so it is not proof. However, this is weak because Allah narrated it from them in a context of praise; therefore, they must be truthful in this statement, as it would not be appropriate to praise them for a falsehood. This is the extent of what can be said here. We ask Allah the Great to have mercy on our weakness and lack of understanding, and to forgive our mistakes, for we seek only the truth and desire only sincerity.

Regarding {For her is what she has earned, and against her is what she has incurred}

Al-Wāḥidī (may Allah have mercy on him) said the correct view among linguists is that kasb and iktisāb are the same, with no difference. Dhū al-Rummah said:

He found his father earning that which is acquired.

The Qur'an also indicates this: {Every soul is held in pledge for what it has earned} (74:38); {and no soul earns except against itself} (6:164); {Yes, whoever earns an evil deed and his sin encompasses him} (2:81); and {And those who abuse the believing men and believing women untruly for what they have not earned} (33:58). This shows that each term stands for the other.

Some scholars maintain a difference, with two opinions:

1. Acquiring (Iktisāb) is more specific than Earning (Kasb): Kasb includes what one earns for oneself and for others. Iktisāb is only what one acquires for oneself specifically. One says, "So-and-so is a kāsib for his family," but not "muktasib for his family."
2. Difference based on Good/Evil (The view of the author of Al-Kashshāf): Good is specified with kasb, and evil with iktisāb. This is because iktisāb implies active exertion (i'timāl). Since evil is what the soul desires and is drawn toward, and is commanding (ammārah), the soul is more active and strenuous in achieving it. Therefore, it is described as muktasab (acquired) in this context. Since this is not the case with good, it is described with a term that does not imply such exertion. (And Allah knows best.)

The Mu'tazila used this verse to argue that the servant creates his own actions. They say the verse explicitly attributes both good and evil to him. If this were by Allah's creation, this attribution would be void, and the occurrence of his actions would be like his color, height, shape, and other things over which he has no power—a matter already discussed. Al-Qāḍī [al-Jubā’ī] asked: If Allah creates their actions, what is the purpose of commanding them? Furthermore, the request that Allah not burden them is meaningless if Allah creates the action, as the heavy (thaqīl) is the same as the light in their view, since Allah creates both without the servant experiencing toil or fatigue.

Our companions used this verse to refute the doctrine of nullification (that good deeds are nullified by subsequent evil deeds, or vice versa). They argue that Allah affirmed both outcomes conjunctively: {For her is the reward of what she has earned, and against her is the penalty of what she has incurred}. This explicitly shows that these two entitlements coexist, and the occurrence of one does not necessitate the removal of the other.

Al-Jubā’ī replied: Although the apparent meaning suggests absoluteness, it is conditional. The meaning is: She has the reward for the good deeds she earned, if she does not nullify them, and she bears the penalty for the evil she incurred, if she does not expiate it through repentance. We assume this condition because we established that reward must be pure, permanent benefit, and punishment must be pure, permanent harm, and combining them is rationally impossible. Therefore, combining their entitlements is also impossible.

(The discussion on this issue was covered exhaustively in the exegesis of {O you who have believed, do not invalidate your charities by boasting and causing injury} (2:264), so we will not repeat it here.)

Many theologians used this verse to argue that Allah does not punish children for the sins of their fathers. The basis for this inference is clear, similar to {And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another} (6:164).

The jurists relied on this verse to establish that the default principle regarding possession is permanence and continuation, because the lām (for/to) in {For her is what she has earned} indicates the establishment of this specific ownership. This is reinforced by the Prophet's saying: "Every person has a greater right to his earnings than his father, his son, and all other people."

Based on this principle, many issues in jurisprudence are derived:

1. Guaranteed items are not owned by paying the guarantee: Because the cause for the permanence of ownership remains—His saying {For her is what she has earned}—and the intervening cause (guarantee or pledge) does not necessitate the removal of ownership, as evidenced by the Umm Walad (a female slave who bore her master a child) and the Mudabbar (a slave designated for manumission upon the master's death).
2. If someone usurps land and incorporates it into a building, or usurps wheat and grinds it, ownership does not transfer: Due to {For her is what she has earned}.
3. The neighbor has no right of preemption (Shuf'a): Because the cause for the permanence of ownership remains ({For her is what she has earned}). The difference between a partner and a neighbor is clear, as the neighbor does not precede the partner, which prevents equality. Furthermore, the harm caused by mixing with a neighbor is less severe, and in partnership, one must bear the cost of division, which is absent with the neighbor.
4. Cutting off (the hand of a thief) does not negate the obligation of restitution (Ḍamān): Because the cause for the permanence of ownership remains ({For her is what she has earned}), and cutting off does not negate ownership, as evidenced by the fact that if the stolen item still exists, it must be returned to the owner, and the cutting off does not cause the loss of ownership.
5. Deniers of Zakat obligation used this verse: The response is that the proofs mandating Zakat are more specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general. In summary, this verse is a major foundation for many branches of Fiqh. (And Allah knows best.)

Regarding the Supplications of the Believers

Allah narrated the supplications of the believers because the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Supplication is the essence of worship." The supplicant witnesses himself in a state of poverty, need, humility, and destitution, while witnessing the majesty, generosity, might, and greatness of Allah in a state of self-sufficiency and transcendence. This is the goal of all acts of worship and obedience. For this reason, this noble Sura, containing these great sciences, is concluded with supplication and humble appeal to Allah.

We have discussed the realities of supplication in the exegesis of {And when My servants ask you concerning Me, indeed I am near} (2:186).

Allah narrated four types of supplication from the believers, and each of the first three begins with {Our Lord} (Rabbanā), except for the fourth type, where this word is omitted: {And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy upon us}.

Sub-Issue 1: Meaning of Mu'ākhadhah (Imposition/Reckoning)

Mu'ākhadhah means: Do not punish us. The term mufā'alah (reciprocal action) is used even though it is a single action, because the forgetful person has allowed access to himself and paved the way for it by his own action. Thus, the one who punishes him for his sin is like one who assists himself in harming himself. I have another view: Allah takes the sinner with punishment, so the sinner, in a sense, takes hold of his Lord by demanding pardon and generosity, as he finds no one to save him from punishment except Him. Therefore, the servant clings to Him out of fear of Him. Since each one takes hold of the other, the term mu'ākhadhah is used.

Sub-Issue 2: The Meaning of Forgetfulness (Nisyan)

The First View: It means forgetfulness itself, which is the opposite of remembrance.

Objection: Is not the act of the forgetful person pardoned by rational proof (since commanding the unbearable is impossible) and by textual proof (the Prophet said: "The error, forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into are lifted from my Ummah")? If forgetfulness is certainly pardoned, what is the meaning of seeking pardon for it in supplication?

Responses:

1. Forgetfulness has two categories: Some forgetfulness is excused, and some is not. If a person sees blood on his garment but forgets to remove it until he prays while it is still there, he is considered negligent because he was obligated to remove it immediately. If he did not see it, he is excused. Similarly, if one throws at game and hits a person, if the thrower was not aware he might hit someone else, he is excused if he did not take precautions. If signs of error were not apparent, and he hit someone, he is excused. Likewise, if a person neglects studying and reviewing until he forgets the Qur'an, he is blameworthy. But if he was diligent in reading and then forgot, he is excused. Thus, forgetfulness has two types: excused and unexcused (when one neglects preservation and remembrance). Therefore, seeking forgiveness for it through supplication is valid.
2. It is a conditional supplication: These believers were certain of Allah in the truest sense, so nothing improper should have issued from them except through forgetfulness or error. Describing them with this supplication is an indication of their innocence regarding what warrants punishment. It is as if they say: If forgetfulness is something punishable, then do not punish us for it.
3. The purpose is showing humility: The goal of supplication is to show humility to Allah, not necessarily to request the action itself. A supplicant often prays for something he is certain Allah will do whether he prays or not (e.g., {My Lord, judge with truth} (21:112); {Our Lord, give us what You promised us through Your messengers and do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection} (3:194); and the angels' prayer: {So forgive those who have repented and followed Your way} (40:7)). Thus, knowing forgetfulness is forgiven does not prevent seeking it beautifully in supplication.
4. Punishment for the forgetful is not rationally impossible: If a person knew he would be punished after forgetting, the fear of punishment would compel him to maintain remembrance. Maintaining remembrance is difficult for the soul. Since this is rationally permissible, seeking pardon for it through supplication is appropriate.
5. Ash'arite view (for those who permit commanding the unbearable): They argue that the forgetful person cannot guard against the action. If it were not rationally permissible for Allah to punish him for it, seeking the removal of punishment through supplication would be inappropriate.

The Second View (Regarding Forgetfulness): It is interpreted as omission/abandonment. Allah says: {and he forgot, and We found in him no firm resolve} (20:115), and {They forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves} (9:67), meaning they abandoned action for Allah, so He abandoned them. A man might say to his friend, "Do not forget me regarding your gift," meaning, "Do not abandon me." Thus, this forgetfulness means abandoning an action due to a corrupt interpretation, and khaṭa' (error) means performing an action due to a corrupt interpretation.

Sub-Issue 3: Implications for Major Sins

It is known that the forgetfulness and error mentioned here are either interpreted in a way that implies intending what is improper, or one is so while the other is not. If the first possibility is true (both imply intending impropriety), it indicates that pardon is granted to those who commit major sins. Since intentional sin is present in both forgetfulness and error, and Allah commanded Muslims to supplicate, {Our Lord, do not impose upon us if we forget or err}, this is a command from Allah to ask Him not to punish them for sins. Since He commanded them to ask for this, it implies He will grant them what is requested, indicating pardon for those who commit major sins. The second and third possibilities are false because punishment for such acts is ugly to the opponent (Mu'tazila), and what is ugly for Allah to do is impossible, so it cannot be requested in supplication.

Objection: The forgetful person can be held accountable for intentionally neglecting precautions, as established previously. Response: In reality, he is being held accountable for intentionally neglecting precautions. The punishment is only for what he intentionally abandoned. The apparent meaning of the verse indicates hope for pardon for the people of major sins.

This is the second type of supplication, with several issues:

Sub-Issue 1: Meaning of Iṣr (Burden/Shackle)

Iṣr in language means weight and severity. Al-Nābigha said:

O repeller of oppression from covering their nobles, And the bearer of the iṣr from them after they knew.

A covenant is called iṣr because it is heavy. Allah says: {And [recall] when Allah took the covenant from the prophets, [saying], "Take from Me of the Scripture and wisdom and then there will come to you a Messenger confirming what is with you. You shall believe in him and support him." [Allah] said, "Do you affirm and take upon yourselves My covenant on that [condition]?" They said, "We affirm." [He] said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses"} (3:81), meaning My covenant and promise. Iṣr also means affection/kinship. One says, "There is no āṣirah (bond) connecting me to him," meaning kinship or relationship. Affection is called iṣr because your affection for someone weighs heavily on your heart regarding any hardship that reaches them.

Sub-Issue 2: Interpretation of the Burden

The First View (Held by exegetes): Do not make the commands severe for us as You made them severe for those before us, the Jews. Exegetes said: Allah obligated them with fifty daily prayers, commanded them to pay a quarter of their wealth as Zakat, and commanded them to cut off impurity from their garments. If they forgot something, punishment was hastened in this world. If they committed a sin, some foods lawful to them became forbidden (4:160). Allah said: {Because of the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We made unlawful for them certain good things which had been lawful to them}. If We had commanded them, {Kill yourselves, or go forth from your homes}, few of them would have done it. Furthermore, the prohibition of drinking from the river for the followers of Talut was imposed on them. Their punishment was hastened in this world, as in {before We efface faces}, and they were transformed into apes and pigs. Al-Qaffāl noted that whoever examines the fifth book of the Torah claimed by these Jews will find the severity of the covenants and promises taken from them, and many wonders. The believers asked their Lord to protect them from such severe restrictions, and by His grace and mercy, He removed that from them. Allah describes this Ummah: {and He relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were upon them} (7:157). The Prophet (PBUH) said: "The transformation, sinking, and drowning have been lifted from my Ummah." Allah says: {But Allah would not have punished them while you, [O Muhammad], were among them, nor would Allah have punished them while they were seeking forgiveness}. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "I was sent with the easy, tolerant Ḥanīfiyyah." The believers requested this lightening because severity is a likely cause of shortcoming, and shortcoming necessitates punishment, and they lack the capacity for Allah's punishment. Thus, they requested ease in commands.

The Second View: Do not impose upon us a covenant and promise similar to those imposed upon those before us in severity and strictness. This view essentially reverts to the first but implies something extra beyond the literal wording, making the first view preferable.

Sub-Issue 3: Why the Severity for the Jews?

One might ask: Rational and textual proofs indicate that Allah is the Most Generous and Most Merciful. What was the reason for the severe commands imposed on the Jews, leading them to transgress and rebel? The Mu'tazila answered: It is possible for something to be a benefit for one person and a harm for another. Severity and harshness were dominant in the nature of the Jews, so they were only reformed by difficult and severe commands. This Ummah, however, has gentleness, noble character, and high ambition dominating their nature, so their benefit lay in lightening the restrictions.

The Ash'arites responded: We transfer the question we raised previously to this point: Why were the Jews singled out for harshness of nature, hardness of heart, and baseness of ambition, necessitating great severity in commands? And why was this Ummah singled out for gentleness of nature, nobility of character, and loftiness of ambition, so that easy commands suffice for their benefit? Whoever reflects fairly knows that these justifications are flawed. The Majesty of the Glorified is far above being measured by the scale of the Mu'tazila. He does what He wills and rules what He wills: {He is not questioned about what He does, while they are questioned}.

This is the third type of supplication from the believers.

Sub-Issue 1: Meaning of Ṭāqah (Strength/Ability)

Ṭāqah is a noun derived from iṭāqah (enabling), like ṭā'ah from iṭā'ah (obedience), and ijābah from ijābah (answering). It is used in place of the verbal noun (maṣdar).

Sub-Issue 2: Permissibility of Commanding the Unbearable

Some Ash'arites relied on this verse to argue that commanding the unbearable is permissible, because if it were not permissible, it would not be proper to ask Allah to refrain from it.

Mu'tazila Responses:

1. Meaning of mā lā ṭāqata lanā bihi: It means what is extremely difficult to perform. A man says, "I cannot look at so-and-so" when he finds him repulsive. A poet said:

   If you command me what I cannot bear, You will dislike the character you find in me. The Hadith states regarding a slave: "He has his food and clothing, and he is not commanded with work he cannot bear," meaning what is difficult for him. 'Imrān ibn al-Ḥuṣayn narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "The sick person prays sitting; if he cannot, he prays on his side." All jurists say this means if sitting causes him severe hardship. Allah describes the disbelievers: {they could not hear [the truth]} (11:20), meaning it was difficult for them.

2. The wording is lā taḥmilnā (do not lay upon us), not lā tukallifnā (do not command us): Taḥammul (bearing/carrying) means placing upon someone what he cannot bear. Thus, it refers to punishment. The meaning is: Do not lay upon us Your punishment which we cannot endure. If we apply it to punishment, {do not lay upon us} is literal. If we apply it to command, it is metaphorical. The literal meaning is preferable.
3. Requesting the impossible does not imply its possibility: If they asked Allah not to command them with what they lack the power to do, this does not imply that He could do the opposite. If it did, then {My Lord, judge with truth} (21:112) would imply He could judge with falsehood. Similarly, Abraham's plea {and do not disgrace me on the Day they are resurrected} (26:87) would imply it is permissible for prophets to be disgraced. Allah commanded His Messenger: {and do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites} (33:48), but this does not imply it is permissible for the Messenger to obey them. The same applies to {If you should associate [anything] with Allah, then surely your deeds will be nullified} (39:65).

Ash'arite Responses:

1. First point refuted in two ways: If {and do not lay upon us a burden we have no strength to bear} is interpreted as "do not make the commands severe for us," its meaning becomes identical to the preceding verse, {and do not impose upon us a burden as You imposed upon those who were before us}. This would make the verse mere repetition, which is impermissible. Second, we established that ṭāqah means ability/power. So, {do not lay upon us what we have no strength to bear} literally means "do not lay upon us what we have no power over." At most, this word is used metaphorically for the future in some contexts, but the default is to hold the word to its literal meaning.
2. The word taḥammul is specific to command in the Qur'an: Allah says: {Indeed, We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to bear it and feared it. But man [undertook to] bear it} (33:72). Even if this usage were not established, {do not lay upon us what we have no strength to bear} is general regarding both punishment and command, so it must be applied literally. Specializing it without proof is not permissible.
3. If an action is impossible, requesting its cessation through supplication is inappropriate: It becomes like someone saying in his prayer: "Our Lord, do not combine two opposites, and do not make the eternal contingent," as these are impossible.

If this is established, then this is the fundamental rule. If this rule is abandoned in certain cases due to a specific proof, it is not required to abandon it in other cases without proof. (Success is by Allah.)

Sub-Issue 3: Further Questions on the Supplication

Question 1: Why did the first verse say {do not impose upon us a burden (iṣr)} and this verse say {do not lay upon us (taḥammulnā) what we have no strength to bear}? Why the specification of ḥaml (carrying) and taḥammul (laying a burden)? Answer: What is difficult (shāqq) can be carried (ḥaml), but what is not possible cannot be carried. What is unbearable (mā lā ṭāqata lanā bihi) only involves taḥammul (being burdened); ḥaml is not possible. As for what is difficult, both ḥaml and taḥammul are possible. This is why the latter verse is specified with taḥammul.

Question 2: Since he requested not to be commanded with difficult actions ({do not impose upon us a burden}), it logically follows that he should not be commanded with what he cannot bear. Thus, the reverse order would have been more appropriate. Answer (My conjecture, and knowledge belongs to Allah): The servant has two stations. One is adhering to the outward aspects of the Shari'ah. The second is commencing the unveiling of mysteries (mukāshafāt), which is engaging in knowing Allah, serving Him, obeying Him, and thanking Him for His favors. In the first station, he requests the removal of severity. In the second station, he says: Do not ask me for praise worthy of Your Majesty, nor thanks worthy of Your bounties, nor knowledge worthy of the sanctity of Your greatness, as this is not fitting for my remembrance, thanks, and thought, and I have no strength for that. Since the Shari'ah precedes the reality (ḥaqīqah), it is appropriate that {and do not impose upon us a burden} precedes {and do not lay upon us what we have no strength to bear}.

Question 3: Why did Allah narrate these supplications from the believers in the plural form: {do not impose upon us...}? What is the benefit of this plurality during supplication? Answer: The purpose is to show that the acceptance of supplication is more complete when the community unites. Intentions have effects; when spirits and motives unite upon one thing, its attainment is more complete.

These first three types of supplication requested omission (cessation of negative actions) and were prefixed with {Our Lord}. This fourth supplication omits {Our Lord} and its apparent meaning requests action (positive outcomes).

Question 1: Why was the word Rabbanā omitted here?

Answer: Invocation (Nidā’) is needed when one is distant. When one is near, it is not needed. The omission of the invocation signals that when the servant perseveres in humble appeal, he attains closeness to Allah. This is a great secret that reveals other secrets.

Question 2: What is the difference between ‘Afw (Pardon), Maghfirah (Forgiveness), and Raḥmah (Mercy)?

Answer:

• ‘Afw (Pardon): The removal of punishment from him.
• Maghfirah (Forgiveness): Concealing his sin to protect him from the punishment of humiliation and disgrace. It is as if the servant says: I ask You for pardon, and when You pardon me, conceal it from others, because salvation from the punishment of the grave is only sweet if it is followed by salvation from the punishment of disgrace. The first is bodily punishment; the second is spiritual punishment.
• Once freed from both, he turns to requesting reward, which is also twofold:
  • Bodily reward: The bliss, delights, and good things of Paradise.
  • Spiritual reward: Its ultimate goal is that the light of Allah's Majesty is unveiled to him, and the loftiness of His Greatness is revealed to him to the extent of his capacity. This occurs when he becomes absent from everything other than Allah, completely immersed in the light of Allah's presence.
• {and have mercy upon us} is a request for bodily reward.
• {You are our Mawlā} is a request for spiritual reward, and for the servant to turn completely toward Allah, as {You are our Mawlā} is an address to those present. Many theologians might find these terms excessive, considering them merely acts of obedience, and they are correct in what they perceive, as that is the extent of their knowledge: {Indeed, your Lord—He is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided} (53:30).

There is another benefit in {You are our Mawlā}: This word indicates the utmost submission, humility, and acknowledgment that He is the Trustee of every blessing they attain and the Giver of every honor they achieve. Thus, when supplicating, they show that in their being able to speak of His grace and favor, they are like a child whose welfare depends entirely on the management of his guardian, or a servant whose affairs are not organized except by the rectification of his Mawlā. He is the Sustainer (Qayyūm) of the heavens and the earth, the One who manages the affairs of all, and the true Trustee of everything, as stated: {Excellent is the Mawlā and excellent is the Helper} (8:40). Similar verses include {Allah is the Wali (Patron/Protector) of those who believe} (2:257), meaning their Helper; {for indeed, Allah is his Mawlā} (66:4), meaning his Helper; and {That is because Allah is the Mawlā of those who believe, but the disbelievers have no Mawlā} (47:11).

Then He said: {so give us victory over the disbelieving people}, meaning grant us victory over them in our fighting against them, in debating them with proof, and in elevating the state of Islam over their state, as in {that He may make it prevail over all religions} (9:33). Some profound scholars said that {so give us victory over the disbelieving people} means Allah's support with spiritual, angelic power to conquer the bodily forces that call one away from Allah.

This concludes the Sura.

Narration: Al-Wāḥidī narrated from Muqātil ibn Sulaymān that when the Prophet (PBUH) was taken on the Night Journey (Isrā’) to the heavens, he was given the concluding verses of Sūrat al-Baqarah. The angels said: "Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has honored you with beautiful praise of Himself with {The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him...} Ask and supplicate to Him." Gabriel taught him how to supplicate. The Prophet (PBUH) said: {Our Lord, [we seek] Your forgiveness, and to You is the [final] destination}. Allah replied: "I have forgiven you." He said: {Do not impose upon us}. Allah replied: "No [I will not]." He said: {Our Lord, and do not impose upon us a burden as You imposed upon those who were before us}. Allah replied: "I will not make it severe for you." The Prophet said: {and do not lay upon us what we have no strength to bear}. Allah replied: "I will not burden you with that." The Prophet said: {And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy upon us}. Allah replied: "I have pardoned you, forgiven you, had mercy on you, and I will grant you victory over the disbelieving people." In some narrations, the Prophet (PBUH) would mention these supplications, and the angels would say Āmīn.

This poor, wretched servant who wrote these words says: My God and my Master, everything I have compiled and written, I intended only Your Face and Your pleasure. If I have succeeded, it is by Your guidance; accept it from this beggar by Your grace. If I have erred, then overlook it by Your grace and mercy, O You whose persistence is not wearied by the insistent, nor distracted by the requests of the petitioners.

This is the end of the discussion on the exegesis of this verse, and all praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. And may Allah send blessings upon our Master Muhammad, the Prophet, and upon his family and companions, and grant them peace.