Tafsir of As-Sajdah 32:4

Surah As-Sajdah (The Prostration): Verse 4

{الله الذي خلق السماوات والأرض...}

When the matter of prophethood was mentioned, He clarified the Messenger's call to monotheism and the presentation of proof. He said: {Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth}. Allah is the subject (mubtada'), and the predicate (khabar) is He Who created. This means Allah is the One who created the heavens and the earth, and none but One created them; therefore, there is no god but One.

We have previously mentioned that His saying, {in six days}, alludes to six states/phases in the observer's contemplation. This is because the heavens, the earth, and what is between them are three things, and each has an essence (dhāt) and attributes (ṣifah).

1. Contemplating the creation of the essence of the heavens is one state.
2. Contemplating the creation of their attributes is another state.
3. Contemplating the essence of the earth is a third state.
4. Contemplating its attributes is a fourth state.
5. Contemplating the essences of what is between them is a fifth state.
6. Contemplating their attributes is a sixth state.

Thus, there are six things in six states. The days were mentioned because when a person looks at creation, he sees it as an action (fi'l), and the action is bound by time (zamān). Days are the most common measure of time. Otherwise, before the heavens, there was no night or day. This is like someone saying:

It is possible that he was born at night, but this does not contradict his intent, because the intent is the time (zamān) which serves as the container for his birth.

{Then He established Himself above the Throne}

Know that the scholars have two approaches regarding this verse and similar ones:

1. Refraining from explaining the intended meaning.
2. Attempting to explain the intended meaning.

The first approach (refraining) is safer and closer to wisdom.

• Why it is safer: Whoever says, "I will not delve into explaining this, nor do I know its intended meaning," is in a position where he is speaking without an obligation to speak, or he is ignorant of something he is not obligated to know. The fundamental principles of religion are three: Monotheism (Tawhid), belief in Resurrection (Hashr), and acceptance of the Messengers. Belief in the Resurrection is unanimously obligatory, but knowing its details (when it occurs) is not obligatory. This is why the preceding Surah states: {Indeed, Allah has knowledge of the Hour} (Luqman: 34). Similarly, knowledge of Allah's existence, His Oneness, and His possession of the attributes of Majesty and perfection is obligatory in a general sense, along with His transcendence over the defects of possibility and the attributes of deficiency. It is not obligatory to know all His attributes exactly as they are. The attribute of Istiwā’ (establishment above the Throne) is not obligatory knowledge. Therefore, whoever refrains from explaining it has not abandoned an obligation. However, whoever attempts to explain it might err and believe something contrary to reality. The first person's maximum consequence is ignorance, while the second risks falling into compounded ignorance (jahl murakkab). The absence of compounded ignorance is like silence, whereas lying is not. No one doubts that silence is better than lying.

• Why it is closer to wisdom: If one studies a book written by a human, and then a commentator writes an explanation—and the commentator is lesser than the author—it is likely that the commentator will not cover everything the author covered. We often see people raise objections against an earlier author, and then someone comes to defend the author's statement, saying, "The author did not mean this; rather, he intended such and such." If this is the case for created books written with limited knowledge, what do you think of the Noble Book, which contains all wisdom? It is presumptuous for an ignorant person to claim he knows every secret in this Book. Even if a scholar claimed to know every secret and benefit contained in a specific book, such a claim would be unbecoming. How much more so for one claiming to know everything in the Book of Allah? Furthermore, no one can argue that Allah has explained everything He revealed, because delaying clarification until the time of need is permissible. Perhaps some parts of the Qur'an are only needed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and not by others. If this is established, we know that the Qur'an contains things unknown to us, and this (the ambiguous verses) is closer to what is unknown due to the profound ambiguity present in them.

However, this doctrine has a condition: one must negate what is definitively known not to be intended. If someone says, "These days are the days of so-and-so's purity (ṭuhr)," it is known he does not mean the days of her menstruation or the days of her travel; the meaning is restricted to purity or menstruation. Similarly here, we know the intended meaning cannot involve any deficiency in His Essence, as that is impossible. Sitting (julūs) and spatial establishment (istiqrār makānī) fall into this category of deficiency, so we must definitively negate them and pause regarding what remains possible.

The second approach (explaining) is perilous, and those who follow it fall into two groups:

1. Those who say the apparent meaning is intended: rising up, standing upright, or spatial establishment. This is pure ignorance.
2. Those who say the meaning is domination/sovereignty (istīlā’). This might be ignorance.

The first group's view is ignorance, and it is an innovation (bid'ah) bordering on disbelief (kufr). The second group's view, even if ignorant, does not necessarily lead to innovation. This is analogous to someone believing Allah shows mercy to disbelievers and never punishes them—this is ignorance, innovation, and disbelief. But if someone believes Allah shows mercy to Zayd, whose state is unknown, this is merely a non-conforming belief, not an innovation.

Another interpretation suggested is that Istiwā’ means sovereignty over the Kingdom (milk). The Throne (al-'Arsh) is often used metaphorically for the Kingdom. It is said, "The king sat upon the throne of the city," even if he has not physically entered it. This is like His saying: {And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained up"} (Al-Ma'idah: 64), referring to stinginess, even though they did not literally mean a chain is on Allah's hand. If that were Allah's intent, it would be a lie, which is far above His glorious speech.

Furthermore, there is a point supporting this: Kings have different ranks. A ruler of a small city or limited lands is not usually accustomed to sitting first on a throne. But a Sultan who owns vast lands and wide territories, with kings serving him, has a throne upon which he sits, and before him, a chair where his vizier sits. The Throne and the Chair are typically associated with the greatness of the kingdom. Since the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth is of the utmost greatness, He used terminology that conventionally signifies greatness.

What supports this is His saying: {Indeed, We created} (Al-Insan: 2), {Indeed, We adorned} (As-Saffat: 6), {We are nearer} (Qaf: 16), {Indeed, We sent down} (Al-Hijr: 9). Does any Muslim doubt that the apparent meaning of "We" is intended? Does he find any other interpretation? The great one, by convention, is not singular; he is accompanied by others. Similarly, the Great King, by convention, has a throne upon which he sits. Thus, this term was used to signify greatness.

What further supports this is that a defeated, overpowered, and routed person is described as "the earth became tight upon him until there was no place left for him." Does anyone think they literally mean he lost all physical space? How can one conceive of a body without space, especially for those who claim their God is in a place? How can a human escape location? Just as it is said of the defeated fugitive that he has no place left (even though place is necessary for him), it is said of the Capable, Overpowering One that He is established and has a Throne, even if transcendence from place is obligatory for Him.

In this context, the word {then} (thumma) means: He created the heavens and the earth, and then the account is that He established sovereignty over the Kingdom. This is like someone saying: "So-and-so honored me and favored me repeatedly, and I recount things about him. Then I say, he did not know me, nor did I do anything to him that would warrant him rewarding me like this." We would say thumma here is for narration, not for sequential timing of the events themselves.

The third approach: It is said that Istiwā’ means establishment (istiqrār). This view is apparent but does not imply being in a location. This is because a person says, "So-and-so's opinion settled on leaving," and no one doubts that he does not mean the opinion is physically located in the act of leaving, as opinion cannot be described as being established or occupying space.

Knowing this, the understanding of establishment (tamakkun) when using the word istiqrār is conditional upon the possibility of establishment. If someone says, "Zayd settled on the ark or the throne," it is understood that he is established and in a place. But if someone says, "The kingdom settled upon so-and-so," it is not understood that the kingdom is in so-and-so. Therefore, when someone says, "Allah established Himself above the Throne," it should not be understood as Him being in a place unless it is known that being in a place is possible for Him or impossible. If the possibility of being in a place is derived from this word, it necessitates a thing preceding itself, which is impossible.

What indicates that it is impossible for Him to be on the Throne in the sense of the Throne being a location for Him are several points from the Qur'an:

1. {And indeed, Allah is the Self-Sufficient (Al-Ghaniyy)} (Al-Hajj: 64). This implies He is absolutely Self-Sufficient. Everything in a location requires that location for its continued existence, as rational intuition dictates that if space does not exist, the localized entity cannot persist. The localized entity ceases to exist when the space ceases. Everything that ceases upon the cessation of something else requires that other thing for its persistence. Therefore, asserting His establishment implies His need for a location for persistence, contradicting His being Al-Ghaniyy by textual evidence.
2. {Everything will perish except His Face} (Al-Qasas: 88). The Throne perishes, as does every location. He remains, so at that time, He will not be in a location. Thus, it is permissible for Him not to be in a location, and what is permissible for Him must be obligatory for Him. Therefore, it is obligatory that He is not in a location.
3. {And He is with you} (Al-Hadid: 4). The argument here is that when 'alā (above/upon) is used for location, it implies physical presence, like saying, "So-and-so is on the roof." When ma'a (with) is used for two entities in a location, it implies physical proximity, like saying, "Zayd is with 'Amr." If Allah were in a location and we are localized beings, then His saying {Allah is with us} and {He is with you} should imply physical proximity, which is not the case. If it is argued that ma'a is used for inclination, knowledge, or support (e.g., "King A is with King B" meaning with support), then we respond: The word 'alā is used for one's authority over another. One says, "If it were not for so-and-so being over so-and-so, he would have been in danger of ruin." Similarly, "If so-and-so were not over so-and-so's properties or land, he would not have gained anything from them," meaning supervision and oversight. Why should we not say that Istiwā 'alā al-'Arsh means He established His rule over it, just as we say ma'a means His knowledge or support?
4. {No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision} (Al-An'am: 103). If He were in a location, the location would encompass Him. In that case, He would either be seen or not seen. The latter is impossible by consensus, as asserting He is in a location yet unseen is false by consensus. If He is seen, He is seen within a location that encompasses Him, so vision grasps Him. However, if He is not in a location, whether He is seen or not, vision cannot grasp Him. If He is not seen, that is apparent. If He is seen, it is because vision cannot encompass Him, as anything encompassed by vision must have a location in which to be, and we have already posited the absence of location.

If one reflects upon the Qur'an, he will find it filled with evidence against His being in a location. Moreover, what this proponent relies upon actually proves that He is not on the Throne in the sense of occupying a location. This is because the word {then} (thumma) implies a temporal gap. If He were on it in the sense of location, He would have attained that state after not being in it previously. Before that, He was either in a location or not.

• If He was in a location, it implies two impossibilities: First, that space is eternal. Second, this proponent contradicts the philosophers by asserting the eternity of one of the heavens.
• If He was not in a location, reason dictates that what comes into existence in a location must have been preceded by a state of not being in a location. If this were permissible, one could not argue that a body, if eternal, must have been either stationary or moving in eternity, as both are consequences of existing in a location. If this is the case, it forces him to affirm the createdness of Allah, or deny the createdness of the world. If he concedes that before the location, He was not in a location, he affirms the createdness of Allah. If he does not concede this, it means a body could have existed eternally without being in a location, and then later came to occupy a location. Thus, his proof for the createdness of the world fails, forcing him to deny the world's createdness. Furthermore, this proponent accuses others of likening Allah to the non-existent (who is not in a location), yet he forces himself to require a location for Allah, thus making Him dependent on something else for existence, which means He is non-existent relative to what He needs. If we were to write down all the implications, the discussion would become lengthy.

{You have no protector or intercessor besides Him. Will you not then remember?}

After mentioning that Allah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, some people said: "We acknowledge that the Creator of the heavens and the earth is One, the God of the heavens. These idols are images of the stars from which we derive our strength and support." Others said: "These are images of the angels who are near Allah; they are our intercessors."

Allah the Exalted responded by saying: There is no god but Allah. There is no support except from Allah, and no intercession except by His permission. Therefore, your worship of these idols is false and futile; they are neither your creators, nor your supporters, nor your intercessors.

Then He said: {Will you not then remember?} What you already know—that He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the creation of these immense bodies—is something these idols cannot accomplish to support you. Furthermore, a great King would not grant such insignificant things honor and greatness to the extent that they could intercede.

{He arranges the affair from the heaven to the earth. Then it ascends to Him in a Day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count. That is the Knower of the unseen and the seen, the Almighty, the Merciful. Who has perfected everything He created and began the creation of man from clay.} (Verses 5-7)