Al Imran: (26-27) Say, "O Allah, Owner of all sovereignty..."

Having mentioned the proofs of Tawhid (Oneness of God), prophethood, and the truth of Islam, and after stating that the Prophet (PBUH) should say, "I have submitted myself to Allah, and so have those who follow me," and after describing the disbelievers' disbelief, their unjust killing of prophets and the righteous, their extreme obstinacy (as in verse 23), their delusion regarding punishment (verse 24), and the warning against them (verse 25), Allah commands His Messenger (PBUH) to offer a supplication and glorification that distinguishes his path and the path of his followers from the path of these obstinate, heedless disbelievers.

Thus, He teaches His Prophet how to glorify, exalt, supplicate, and request: {Say, "O Allah, Owner of all sovereignty..."}

In this verse, there are several issues:

Issue 1: The word {اللهم} (Allahumma)

Grammarians differed regarding the meaning of {اللهم}.

1. Al-Khalil and Sibawayh held that {اللهم} means "O Allah" (يا الله), and the doubled Mīm (م) is a substitute for the vocative particle Yā (يا).
2. Al-Farrā’ suggested that the original form was "O Allah, command good" (يا الله أم بخير), and due to frequent use, the vocative particle was dropped, and the Hamza from Ammar (أم) was also dropped, resulting in {اللهم}. He likened this to the Arabic phrase Halam (هلم), whose origin is Hal (هل), where Amm (أم) was attached to it.

Arguments against Al-Farrā’:

1. If Al-Farrā’’s view were correct, one should not be able to say, "O Allah, do such-and-such" (اللهم افعل كذا) without a conjunction (و), because the implied meaning would be: "O Allah, command us, and forgive us" (يا الله أمنا واغفر لنا). Yet, no one uses this conjunction.
2. Al-Zajjāj’s argument: If the origin were as Al-Farrā’ claimed, it should be permissible to use the original form, saying, "Allah, if..." (الله إما), just as one can say the expanded form, "Woe to his mother" (ويل أمه).
3. If the vocative particle (يا) were omitted, it should be permissible to say, "O Allahumma" (يا اللهم), but this is not permissible. This proves Al-Farrā’’s view is flawed. Furthermore, the vocative particle should be obligatory, just as one says, "O Allah, forgive me" (يا الله اغفر لي).

Al-Farrā’’s Rebuttals:

1. Against the first argument: His interpretation of يا الله إما is "O Allah, intend/command." If one said واغفر لنا (and forgive us), the conjoined part would differ from the part it is conjoined to, making the request two separate things. However, if the conjunction is omitted, اغفر لنا becomes an explanation of أمنا, making the request one single thing in both cases, which is stronger. This structure has many parallels in the Qur'an.
2. Against the second argument: He claims it is weak because, in his view, the origin is يا الله أمنا. He asks who denies the permissibility of saying it in its original form. Moreover, many words do not allow the derivative form to stand in place of the original form. For example, Sibawayh holds that ما أكرمه means "What thing made him noble?" (أي شيء أكرمه), yet this form is never used in expressions of wonder where the original form is used.
3. Against the third argument: He asks who stipulated that saying يا اللهم is impermissible. He cites poetry:

   "And it is upon you to say, whenever / You glorify or pray: O Allahumma." The Basrans counter that this poetry is unknown, which amounts to denying the transmitted evidence. If this door were opened, no part of language or grammar would remain safe from criticism.

4. Regarding the necessity of the vocative particle: He points out that the vocative particle can be omitted, as in {Yūsuf, O truthful one, explain to us} (Yūsuf: 46). Thus, it is not impossible that this specific name (Allah) is uniquely subject to this omission.

Al-Farrā’’s Arguments Against the Basrans (Sibawayh/Al-Khalil):

1. If the Mīm (م) stands in place of the vocative particle (يا), the call (the particle) has been postponed after the called entity (the noun), which is absolutely impermissible. One never says (الله يا).
2. If this particle (م) stands for the vocative particle, it should be possible in all other names, allowing one to say Zaidum (زيدم) or Bakrum (بكرم), just as one says Yā Zaid (يا زيد) and Yā Bakr (يا بكر).
3. If the Mīm were a substitute for the vocative particle, they should never appear together, yet they appear together in the poetry cited.
4. Arabs do not add this Mīm to complete nouns to signify a meaning related to a particle entering the word. Applying this rule only to this single word contradicts the general linguistic analogy, which is impermissible.

This concludes the discussion on this point.

Issue 2: The case of {مالك الملك} (Owner of Sovereignty)

There are two views on its accusative case (نصب):

1. Sibawayh’s view: It is in the accusative case as a vocative (منصوب على النداء), similar to {Say, "O Allah, Originator of the heavens and the earth"} (Az-Zumar: 46). It cannot be an adjective (نعت) for {اللهم} because {اللهم} is a composite of a noun and a particle, and this composite cannot be described.
2. Al-Mubarrad and Al-Zajjāj’s view: {مالك} is an adjective describing the singular vocative noun (المنادى المفرد). This is because the name combined with the Mīm is equivalent to the name combined with the particle Yā (يا). Adjectival description is permissible with the Mīm, just as it is permissible with Yā.

Issue 3: Context of Revelation

It is narrated that when the Prophet (PBUH) conquered Mecca and promised his nation the sovereignty of Persia and Rome, the hypocrites and Jews said, "Far-fetched! How can Muhammad have the sovereignty of Persia and Rome, when they are far mightier and more secure than that?"

It is also narrated that when the Prophet (PBUH) was digging the Trench during the Battle of the Confederates, dividing the trench into sections of forty cubits per ten men, a massive rock emerged that the picks could not break. Salman was sent to the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) took the pick from Salman and struck the rock. It split, and a light flashed out, illuminating the area between the two lava fields as brightly as a lamp in a dark night. The Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims exclaimed Allahu Akbar. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "From it, the palaces of Hira shone for me, like the fangs of dogs." He struck it a second time, saying: "From it, the Red Palaces of the land of Rome shone for me." He struck it a third time and said: "From it, the palaces of Sana'a shone for me, and Jibril (Gabriel) informed me that my nation will be dominant over all of them. So rejoice!"

The hypocrites remarked: "Do you not wonder at your Prophet? He promises you falsehood, telling you he can see the palaces of Hira and the cities of Kisra from Yathrib, and that they will be conquered by you while you are digging the trench, fearful and unable to go out!"

It was then that this verse was revealed, and Allah knows best. Al-Hasan said that Allah commanded His Prophet to ask Him to grant him the sovereignty of Persia and Rome and to return the subjugation of the Arabs to them. His command to do so is evidence that this supplication will be answered. This is the way of the prophets; when commanded to supplicate, their supplications are answered.

Issue 4: The Meaning of {مالك الملك} (Owner of Sovereignty)

Mālik (مالك) means the possessor, and Mulk (ملك) means power/sovereignty. Thus, {مالك الملك} means the Possessor of Power, or the Powerful One over Power. This implies that the power of creation over whatever they can do is only through Allah granting them that power. He is the One who empowers every capable being to do what they can, and He owns everything that every owner possesses.

Al-Kashshāf states: {مالك الملك} means He owns the genus of sovereignty and disposes of it as owners dispose of what they own.

After establishing that Allah is the absolute Owner of Sovereignty, He then specifies five types of dominion:

There are several interpretations:

1. Sovereignty of Prophethood and Messengerhood: As Allah says, {We gave the family of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and We gave them a great dominion} (An-Nisā’: 54). Prophethood is the greatest form of dominion because scholars have great authority over the inner selves of people, and tyrants have authority over their outward actions. Prophets have authority over both, as everyone must accept their religion and law, believing it to be the truth. If people rebel against them, they deserve execution. This interpretation is supported by the fact that some disbelievers found it strange that Allah would send a human messenger, saying, {Has Allah sent a human as a messenger?} (Al-Isrā’: 94). Allah responded, {And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him a man} (Al-An'ām: 9). Other groups permitted Allah to send a human messenger but argued that Muhammad (PBUH) was poor and an orphan, unfit for such a high station, as Allah recounts their saying: {Why was this Qur'an not sent down to a great man from the two towns?} (Az-Zukhruf: 31). As for the Jews, they claimed prophethood belonged to their ancestors, while the Quraysh did not believe the Arabs were worthy of it. The hypocrites envied him, as Allah mentions: {Or have they envied people for what Allah has given them of His bounty?} (An-Nisā’: 37). Furthermore, we previously explained (in the commentary on Al Imran: 12) that the Jews were arrogant toward the Prophet (PBUH) due to their numbers, weapons, and strength. Allah refuted all these groups by stating that He owns sovereignty and gives it to whom He wills: {You give sovereignty to whom You will, and You take sovereignty away from whom You will}.

• Objection: If {You give sovereignty to whom You will} refers to the sovereignty of prophethood, then {and You take sovereignty away from whom You will} must mean that Allah might depose a prophet from prophethood, which is impossible.
  • Answer 1: If Allah places prophethood in the lineage of one man, and then removes it from that lineage to honor another person from a different lineage, it is correct to say that Allah has taken it away from the first lineage. The Jews believed prophethood must remain within the Children of Israel; when Allah honored Muhammad (PBUH) with it, it was correct to say He took the sovereignty of prophethood from the Israelites and gave it to the Arabs.
  • Answer 2: {and You take sovereignty away from whom You will} means He deprives them of receiving this sovereignty, not that He strips it away after granting it. This is analogous to {Allah is the ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light} (Al-Baqarah: 257), even though this statement applies to those who were never in the darkness of disbelief. Similarly, the disbelievers told the prophets, {Or you must return to our religion} (Al-A'rāf: 88), and the prophets replied, {Shall we return to it after Allah has saved us from it?} (Al-A'rāf: 89), even though they had never been in it.

2. Sovereignty in the conventional sense: This refers to the sum of several things:
   • Abundance of wealth and prestige: Wealth includes movable and immovable property, houses, lands, crops, and offspring. Prestige means being revered, having one's word accepted, and being obeyed.
   • Being rightfully obeyed: Being in a position where others must obey one's commands and prohibitions.
   • Ability to overcome rivals: Being able to conquer and defeat anyone who contests one's dominion.

All these aspects depend on Allah. We see shrewd people struggling to acquire little wealth, while the foolish acquire immense, uncountable fortunes. The matter of prestige is even clearer; many kings spent fortunes seeking prestige but became more despised daily. Conversely, some individuals are revered in belief and feared in hearts, obeyed by young and old. The second point (rightful obedience) is a honor Allah bestows. The third point (victory) is clearly from Allah, as we witness small groups overcoming large ones by His permission. This rationally proves the truth of {You give sovereignty to whom You will}.

• The Mu'tazila Discussion: Al-Ka'bi argued that giving and taking sovereignty is not based on arbitrary choice but on merit (استحقاق). Allah gives it to those who uphold it and only takes it from those who transgress, citing {My covenant does not include the wrongdoers} (Al-Baqarah: 124). He also noted Allah praised the righteous servant: {Allah has chosen him over you and increased him in knowledge and stature} (Al-Baqarah: 247), making this a cause for sovereignty. Al-Jubbā’ī restricted this rule to just rulers (ملوك العدل). He argued that the sovereignty of unjust rulers cannot be by Allah's giving, as Allah has forbidden them from possessing it. Therefore, only just rulers receive it from Allah. They analogize this to sustenance: forbidden earnings are not included in the sustenance Allah grants. Taking sovereignty away, however, differs: Allah may take it from just rulers for a greater benefit, or from unjust rulers through death, loss of intellect, loss of power/senses, destruction of wealth, or by commanding the rightful party to overcome the usurper. The conquest of Persia by the Prophet (PBUH) is an example of the latter.

Our Refutation of the Mu'tazila: The sovereignty of the oppressor must either be attributed to the usurper's action alone (which denies the Creator) or to divine causes (which is false, as everyone seeks dominion but fails). Therefore, the sovereignty of the oppressor must be by Allah's granting. This is evident, as some people naturally command awe and victory, while others face the opposite. Reflecting on the state of kings forces the conclusion that this is by Allah's decree. The poet said: > If wealth were attained by stratagems, you would find me > Clinging to the highest means of heaven. > From the sustenance of intellect, wealth is forbidden— > Two opposing things, separated. > And proof of divine decree is the misery of the wise > And the pleasant life of the fool.

3. Comprehensive meaning: The phrase {You give sovereignty to whom You will} applies to all types of dominion: prophethood, knowledge, intellect, health, good character, influence, power, love, and wealth. Since the wording is general, specialization without evidence is impermissible.

Honor (I'zāz) can be in religion or in this world. The noblest honor in religion is faith, as Allah says: {But honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger and to the believers} (Al-Munāfiqūn: 8).

Since faith is the greatest cause of honor, and disbelief is the greatest cause of humiliation, if faith and disbelief were solely dependent on the servant's will, then the servant's self-exaltation through faith and self-humiliation through disbelief would be greater than Allah's exaltation or humiliation of His servant. This is clearly false. Therefore, exaltation through faith and truth, and humiliation through disbelief and error, must come from Allah. This is a strong argument.

The Qadi (Al-Qudā’ī) stated that Allah’s exaltation can be in religion (through reward, praise, and honor in this world and the Hereafter, and by granting favors and victory over enemies) or in this world (by granting wealth, offspring, and instilling awe).

Our Refutation: The honor Allah bestows as a reward is a necessary consequence of His Divinity. If He did not bestow it, He would cease to be the God of creation. By granting these honors, He preserves His own Divinity. If the servant claims to have honored himself by choosing faith (which necessitates these honors), then his self-exaltation would be greater than Allah's exaltation of him, which is impossible.

Regarding {And You humble whom You will}: Al-Jubbā’ī stated that Allah only humbles His enemies in this world and the Hereafter, never His allies, even if they are poor or sick, because these states lead to a greater reward in the Hereafter (like cupping or bloodletting, which cause temporary pain for great benefit). If poverty is called humiliation, it is metaphorical, just as Allah called the believers' gentleness a form of humility: {humble toward the believers} (Al-Mā’idah: 54).

The ways Allah humiliates the false servant include: condemnation, cursing, abandoning them in argument and victory, making them servants to the people of truth, making their wealth spoils, and punishing them in the Hereafter.

Our Position: Allah exalts some through faith and knowledge, and humbles others through disbelief and error. The greatest forms of exaltation and humiliation are these.

1. The exaltation of Islam and the humiliation of disbelief must have an agent. This agent is either the servant or Allah. The former is false, as no one chooses disbelief for themselves; rather, everyone desires faith and guidance. When a servant desires faith but receives ignorance, we know it comes from Allah, not the servant.
2. The ignorance a servant receives is either through doubt or self-initiated action. If every ignorance resulted from prior ignorance, it would lead to an infinite regress, which is impossible. Thus, we must conclude that ignorance sometimes originates without any preceding cause, which the rational person does not choose for themselves. Therefore, it must be due to Allah humbling His servant and abandoning him.
3. Action requires a motivator and a preponderant factor (مرجح), which comes from Allah. If this factor leans toward good, it is exaltation; if it leans toward ignorance, evil, and error, it is humiliation. Thus, Allah is the Exalter and the Humbler.

The word Yad (يد, hand) here means Power. The Al (ال) in {الخير} implies generality. Thus, all blessings and goodness come through Your power. Furthermore, {In Your Hand is all good} implies restriction, meaning: "In Your Hand is all good, and not in the hand of anyone else," similar to {For you is your religion, and for me is my religion} (Al-Kāfirūn: 6). This restriction negates the possibility of good coming from anyone else. Thus, this verse proves that all goodness originates from Him through His creation, formation, and origination.

The greatest good is faith in Allah and knowing Him. Therefore, faith must be created by Allah, not by the servant. This is a clear deduction. Some scholars add: If two agents perform actions, and one action is nobler and better than the other, the agent of the nobler action is nobler. Faith is superior to all other good things. If faith were created by the servant and not by Allah, the servant would necessarily be superior to Allah in goodness and perfection, which is blasphemous disbelief. Thus, this verse proves, by these two points, that faith is created by Allah.

• Objection: This verse is evidence against you from another angle. Since Allah said, {In Your Hand is all good}, it implies that only good is in His Hand, meaning disbelief and sin do not occur by His creation.
• Answer: The phrase means that good is in His Hand and not in anyone else's. It does not negate that both good and non-good are in His Hand; rather, He specified good because it is the beneficial thing, hence the explicit mention. The Qadi said: Any good done by servants would not be possible without Allah enabling and guiding them, so it is attributed to Him. However, this is weak because it implies that some good is attributed to Allah, while the noblest good (faith) is attributed to the servant, contradicting this text.

This serves as an emphasis on the preceding statements regarding His power to give and take sovereignty, to exalt and to humble.

There are two interpretations:

1. He makes the night short and causes the excess time to enter the day, or vice versa. Allah does this because the order and system of the world depend on it.
2. It means He brings the night immediately after the day, covering the world in darkness after daylight, and then brings the day immediately after the night, covering it with light. The intent of "entering one into the other" is the succession of one after the other. The first interpretation is closer to the literal wording, as when the day is long, the time subtracted from it enters the night.

There are several issues:

Issue 1: Recitation Nāfi', Ḥamzah, and Al-Kisā’ī recited {الميت} (the dead) with a shaddah (doubled yā’), while the rest recited it without. They are two linguistic variants meaning the same thing. Al-Mubarrad stated that the Basrans agreed they are identical, citing the verse: "The dead is but the dead of the living." It is like hayyin and hayyin (easy), or layyin and layyin (soft). Some suggest the shaddah refers to one who has died, and the un-shaddah refers to one who has not yet died.

Issue 2: Interpretations The exegetes mentioned several meanings:

1. Bringing the believer out of the disbeliever (like Ibrāhīm from Āzar), and the disbeliever out of the believer (like Kanaan from Nūḥ, peace be upon him).
2. Bringing forth the good from the evil, and vice versa.
3. Bringing forth animals from semen, and birds from eggs, and vice versa.
4. Bringing forth the ear of grain from the seed, and vice versa; the palm tree from the date stone, and vice versa.

Al-Qaffāl (may Allah have mercy on him) said the phrase is open to all these meanings. Regarding faith and disbelief, Allah says: {Or was one who was dead and We gave him life and made for him a light by which he walks among people?} (Al-An'ām: 122), meaning he was a disbeliever whom Allah guided, making death equivalent to disbelief and life to faith. Allah calls the sprouting of plants from the earth "revival" (إحياء) and the earth before that "dead" (ميتة), saying: {Then observe the traces of the mercy of Allah} (Ar-Rūm: 19). He also says: {Then We drove it to a dead land and brought forth by it vegetation after its death} (Fāṭir: 9), and {How can you disbelieve in Allah? Whereas you were dead, and He gave you life. Then He causes you to die, and then He will give you life again} (Al-Baqarah: 28).

There are several interpretations:

1. He gives whomever He wills whatever He wills, and no one holds Him accountable, as there is no sovereign above Him to question Him. He is the King who gives without limit.
2. You provide for whom You will without measure or limit; rather, You expand and broaden the provision for them. This is like saying, "So-and-so spends without limit" when describing abundant giving. Analogous to this is saying someone has wealth beyond counting.
3. You provide for whom You will without limit, meaning as a favor (تفضل) without deserving it, because one who gives according to merit gives with calculation (بحساب). Some who hold this view say: You do not provide for Your servants according to the measure of their deeds. And Allah knows best.

Al Imran: 28

{Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers, and whoever does that has nothing from Allah—except when taking precaution against them. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.}

This verse prohibits the believers from taking disbelievers as intimate allies (أولياء) instead of fellow believers. Whoever does this severs their connection with Allah (فليس من الله في شيء), except when taking necessary precaution (تقاة) against them. Allah warns concerning Himself, and to Him is the final return.