ﲅ ﲆ ﲇ ﲈ ﲉ ﲊ ﲋ ﲌ ﲍ ﲎ ﲏ ﲐ ﲑ ﲒ ﲓ ﲔ ﲕ ﲖ ﲗ ﲘ ﲙ
Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.
Tafsir
Verse range: 3:191-192
Know that when the Almighty mentioned the proofs of Divinity, Power, and Wisdom—matters related to establishing Lordship—He subsequently mentioned matters related to Servitude (ʿubūdīyah). The types of servitude are three: affirmation by the heart, confession by the tongue, and action by the limbs.
Man is composed of this totality. If the tongue is engrossed in remembrance (dhikr), the limbs in gratitude (shukr), and the heart in reflection (tafakkur), then this servant is engrossed in servitude with all his parts.
Thus, the first verse indicates the perfection of Lordship, and this verse indicates the perfection of Servitude. How excellent is this arrangement in drawing souls from creation toward the Truth, and in transferring secrets from the realm of delusion to the presence of the Forgiving King!
We discuss several issues concerning this verse:
There are two opinions among the exegetes regarding this verse:
The first opinion is preferable because numerous verses attest to the virtue of remembrance (dhikr), and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever wishes to roam in the gardens of Paradise, let him increase his remembrance of Allāh."
It is possible that this remembrance refers only to verbal remembrance (by the tongue), or it could refer to remembrance by the heart. The most complete form is the combination of both.
Imam Al-Shafi'i (may Allāh have mercy on him) said that if a sick person prays lying down, he must pray on his side. Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allāh have mercy on him) said he should pray lying on his back until, if he feels relief, he sits up.
The argument for Al-Shafi'i is the apparent meaning of this verse, as Allāh praised one who remembers Him while lying on his side, suggesting this posture is superior.
There is a subtle medical point here: Medical discussions confirm that lying on one's back prevents complete thought and contemplation (tadabbur). Lying on the side, however, does not prevent it. Since this station requires contemplation and reflection, and lying on the side prevents deep sleep, it is the better posture as it is closer to wakefulness and engagement in remembrance.
The phrase {on their sides} (ʿalā junūbihim) is in the accusative case (naṣb) as a circumstantial adverb (ḥāl), connected to the preceding terms: standing, sitting, and lying down.
Know that since Allāh described them with remembrance, and established that remembrance is not complete without reflection (tafakkur), He immediately followed it with: {and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth}. This contains several issues:
Allāh encouraged the remembrance of Allāh, and when it came to reflection, He did not encourage reflection on Allāh, but rather reflection on the states of the heavens and the earth. This aligns with the Prophet's saying: "Reflect upon creation, but do not reflect upon the Creator."
The reason is that inferring from creation to the Creator cannot be done through similarity, but only through difference. We infer the eternity of the Creator from the created things' temporality, and we infer the Creator's transcendence of quantity, quality, and form from the created things' possession of them.
The Prophet's saying, "Whoever knows himself knows his Lord," means: whoever knows himself as contingent knows his Lord as necessary (wājib); whoever knows himself as possible (mumkin) knows his Lord as necessary; and whoever knows himself as needy knows his Lord as self-sufficient (ghaniyy).
Reflection on creation allows for this type of inference. However, reflection on the Creator Himself is utterly impossible in terms of His specific reality. We can only describe Him through negations (He is not substance, not accident, not composite, not located in a direction). His specific reality is different from these negations, and the intellect has no path to know that reality. The intellect becomes bewildered and lost in this station. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) forbade reflection on Allāh and commanded reflection on His creations. This subtlety explains why Allāh commanded remembrance in these verses, and when mentioning reflection, He commanded reflection on His creations, not on Himself.
That which cannot be known by its specific reality can only be known through its effects and actions. The nobler and higher the actions, the more complete the intellect's grasp of the perfection of that Actor. For example, a common person's belief in the Qur'an is general and traditional (taqlīdī). But the verified exegete, who constantly discovers wondrous secrets and subtle points in every verse, has a more complete belief in the Qur'an's greatness.
Knowing this, we state that the proofs of Monotheism (tawḥīd) are limited to two categories: proofs from the horizons (external world) and proofs from the selves (internal world). The proofs from the horizons are undoubtedly greater and more magnificent, as Allāh says: {The creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind} (Ghafir: 57).
Since this is the case, Allāh commanded reflection on the creation of the heavens and the earth because their indication is more astonishing and their evidence greater. Consider a single small leaf: one central vein branches out, and from those branches sprout finer veins, branching further until they become invisible to the eye. At this, one knows that the Creator has profound wisdom and wondrous secrets in managing that leaf, and that Allāh placed within it attractive forces to draw nourishment from the earth's depths, which then flows through these veins to every part of the leaf according to the measure of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
If a person tried to know the manner of the leaf's creation and the management involved in bringing it into existence and implanting the nourishing and growing powers within it, he would fail. When he realizes his intellect is incapable of grasping the creation of that tiny leaf, he then compares that leaf to the heavens (with their sun, moon, and stars) and to the earth (with its seas, mountains, minerals, plants, and animals). He realizes that the leaf, relative to these things, is like non-existence.
When he recognizes his intellect's failure to comprehend that humble thing, he knows he has absolutely no way to access the wonders of Allāh's wisdom in creating the heavens and the earth. Upon realizing this clear proof of his intellectual limitation, nothing remains for him but to confess that the Creator is too majestic and great to be encompassed by the description of describers or the knowledge of knowers. He submits that everything He created contains profound wisdom and great secrets, even if he cannot know them. At this point, he says: "Glory be to You" (Subḥānaka), meaning he engages in glorification, praise, and magnification. Then, he engages in supplication, saying: "Save us from the punishment of the Fire."
The Prophet (PBUH) narrated: "While a man was lying on his bed, he raised his head, looked at the stars and the sky, and said: 'I testify that You have a Lord and Creator. O Allāh, forgive me.' Allāh looked at him and forgave him." The Prophet (PBUH) also said: "There is no worship like reflection," and it is said that reflection removes heedlessness and draws fear (khashyah) to the heart, just as water makes plants grow. He also said: "Do not prefer me over Jonah, son of Matta, for every day, a measure equal to the deeds of the people of the earth was raised up for him." They said this deed was reflection in the knowledge of Allāh, as no one can perform the deeds of the people of the earth with their limbs.
The verse indicates that the highest rank of the Truthful (Ṣiddīqūn) is reflection on the proofs of the Divine Essence and Attributes, and that mere imitation (taqlīd) is false and worthless.
Know that Allāh recounted that these righteous servants, persistent in remembrance and reflection, mentioned five types of supplication:
There is an ellipsis (iḍmār) in the verse. Al-Wāḥidī said the meaning is: They say, "Our Lord, You did not create this in vain." Al-Kashshāf suggests it is in the circumstantial case (ḥāl), meaning: reflecting while saying...
The word {this} (hādhā) is a pronoun referring to the created things (the heavens and the earth). It means: You did not create these wondrous creations in vain. The use of {this} (hādhā) carries a degree of glorification, like His saying: {Indeed, this Qur'an guides to that which is most upright} (Al-Isrā': 9).
There are several interpretations for the accusative case (naṣb) of {in vain} (bāṭilan):
The Mu'tazilites argued that everything Allāh does is for the purpose of ultimate benefit (iḥsān) and wisdom, which means looking after the welfare of His servants. They used this verse as proof, arguing that if Allāh had not created the heavens and earth for a purpose, He would have created them in vain, contradicting this verse. They also argued that this verse refutes the Jabriyyah who claim Allāh intended the creation of the heavens and earth so that most of His servants would commit injustice and disbelief. They state that {Glory be to You} (Subḥānaka) is a declaration of His transcendence from creating them in vain and from all ugliness.
Al-Wāḥidī offered a response that can serve as an answer to this doubt: Vain (bāṭil) is an expression for that which is transient, perishable, and lacks strength, solidity, or permanence. The creation of the heavens and the earth is a perfect, well-established creation, as seen in His saying: {You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency. So return your vision; do you see any breaks?} (Al-Mulk: 3), and {And We constructed above you seven firm [heavens]} (An-Naba': 12). Thus, the meaning of {Our Lord, You did not create this in vain} is this concept, not what the Mu'tazilites mentioned.
Objection to this view:
The Answer: The intellect inherently testifies that existence is either necessary (wājib) or contingent (mumkin). Every contingent thing must ultimately trace its preference back to the Necessary Being. This principle applies universally, meaning good and evil must occur by Allāh's decree. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret this verse as justifying God's actions based on the benefit (maṣāliḥ) derived for creation, as the Mu'tazilites claimed.
Why can't the interpretation attributed to Al-Wāḥidī be correct (that "vain" means weak and perishable)?
The Islamic philosophers used this verse to argue that Allāh created the celestial spheres and stars, placed specific powers within each, and arranged their motions and interactions to result in the benefits of this world and its inhabitants. If this were not the case, their creation would be vain, contradicting the verse. They argue that the benefit cannot merely be inference of the Creator, because the spheres of air and water share in this aspect, leaving no special benefit for the specific nature of the celestial bodies, which would make them vain—contrary to the text.
The Theologians (Mutakallimūn) responded: Why is it not sufficient that they are causes according to custom (ʿādah), not according to true reality (ḥaqīqah)?
This contains two issues:
This is an admission of the inability of intellects to encompass the effects of Allāh's wisdom in creating the heavens and the earth. It means that when people reflect on these great bodies, the most they can know is that their Creator did not create them in vain, but for wondrous wisdom and great secrets, even if their intellects fall short of knowing them.
The purpose is to teach His servants the proper manner of supplication: one must offer praise (thanā') first, and then mention the request, as in this verse.
When Allāh recounted that these sincere servants—whose tongues were engrossed in remembrance, bodies in obedience, and hearts in reflection on the signs of His greatness—still asked Him to save them from the Fire, this implies that it is permissible for Allāh to punish them; otherwise, this supplication would be futile. If the Mu'tazilites thought the first part of the verse was an argument for them, they should know that the end of the verse is an argument for us: that nothing God does is ugly. Similar supplication is recounted of Abraham: {And who I hope will forgive me my sin on the Day of Recompense} (Ash-Shu'arā': 82).
Allāh recounts their saying: {Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller calling us to faith, [saying], "Believe in your Lord," and we believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our evil deeds and cause us to die with the righteous.}
When they asked their Lord to save them from the Fire, they followed it up with what indicates the magnitude and severity of that punishment: shame/disgrace (khizy). This makes the request more weighty, as one's plea is stronger and more sincere when explaining the gravity of what is sought or avoided. Supplication is only connected to acceptance when it is accompanied by specificity. This is a teaching from Allāh on the proper way to present a supplication.
Al-Wāḥidī stated that ikhzā' in language has several related meanings. Al-Zajjāj said: "Allāh disgraced the enemy" (akhzā Allāh al-ʿaduww), meaning He distanced him. Others said: He humiliated him. Shumar ibn Ḥamduwayh said: He exposed him. In the Qur'an: {and do not disgrace me in the presence of my guests} (Hūd: 78). Al-Mufaḍḍal said: He destroyed him. Ibn Al-Anbārī said: Khizy in language means destruction, either through ruin, the failure of an argument, or falling into affliction. All these meanings are close. Al-Kashshāf added: {then indeed You have disgraced him} (faqad akhzaytahu) means You have reached the utmost in disgracing him, similar to saying, "Whoever preceded someone, he has preceded," or "Whoever learned from someone, he has learned."
The Mu'tazilites argued that this verse proves that a major sinner (ṣāḥib al-kabīrah) who performs the prayer is not a believer (mu'min). If a major sinner enters the Fire, Allāh has disgraced him, according to this verse. Since a believer is not disgraced (due to Allāh's saying: {On the Day when Allāh will not bring shame upon the Prophet and those who believed with him...} [At-Taḥrīm: 8]), it must follow from these two verses that the major sinner is not a believer.
The Refutation: The verse {On the Day when Allāh will not bring shame upon the Prophet...} (At-Taḥrīm: 8) does not imply the absolute negation of disgrace; it only implies that disgrace will not occur while they are with the Prophet. This negation does not contradict the affirmation of disgrace in general, as it might occur at another time. This is what I find correct in the response. Al-Wāḥidī mentioned three other answers in Al-Basīṭ:
The essence of this third answer: The term ikhzā' is ambiguous (mushtarak) between causing shame and causing destruction. An ambiguous term cannot be taken to mean both in the context of negation and affirmation simultaneously. Therefore, it is possible that what is negated in the verse from At-Taḥrīm is not what is affirmed in this verse. This refutes the argument, unless ikhzā' is a unified term conveying one meaning, and the two meanings mentioned by Al-Wāḥidī are merely two types under one genus. In that case, the argument fails, because the verse in At-Taḥrīm negates the entire genus, while this verse affirms a specific type, leading to a contradiction.
The Murji'ah used this verse to assert definitively that the major sinner is not disgraced. They argue: Everyone who enters the Fire is disgraced; the major sinner is a believer; the believer is not disgraced (citing At-Taḥrīm: 8 and {and do not disgrace us on the Day of Resurrection} [Āl 'Imrān: 194]). Since Allāh responded to them: {Then his Lord responded to them} (Āl 'Imrān: 195), which implies He does not disgrace believers, it follows that the major sinner is not disgraced by the Fire. Since everyone entering the Fire is disgraced (according to this verse), it must be concluded that the major sinner does not enter the Fire.
The Refutation: As previously stated, the verse in At-Taḥrīm does not negate disgrace absolutely, but only disgrace while they are with the Prophet, which does not preclude disgrace at another time.
The statement {indeed whoever enters the Fire, You have disgraced him} is general, but it is specified in certain contexts:
The Islamic philosophers used this verse to argue that spiritual punishment is more severe than physical punishment. They argue that the verse threatens disgrace after the punishment of the Fire. Since disgrace (takhjīl) is a spiritual punishment, it would not be appropriate to threaten someone already punished physically with a spiritual punishment unless the spiritual one is stronger.
The Mu'tazilites used this verse to argue that sinners who enter the Fire remain there eternally. They interpret disgrace (ikhzā') as destruction (halāk). Thus, {indeed whoever enters the Fire, You have disgraced him} means You have destroyed him. If they were to exit the Fire to Paradise, it would not be true that everyone who enters the Fire is destroyed.
The Refutation: We do not interpret disgrace as destruction; we interpret it as humiliation and causing shame. With this interpretation, your argument dissolves.
This contains two issues:
The Mu'tazilites used this to deny intercession (shafāʿah) for sinners, arguing that intercession is a type of help (naṣr), and the negation of the genus implies the negation of the species.
Refutations:
The Mu'tazilites used this to argue that sinners do not exit the Fire. If someone were to remove them, that remover would be their helper, but the verse denies any helper whatsoever.
The Refutation: This is countered by the verses affirming pardon, as mentioned previously in Sūrat Al-Baqarah.
{Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller calling us to faith, [saying], "Believe in your Lord," and we believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our evil deeds and cause us to die with the righteous.}
