Yā Sīn: (23) Shall I take besides Him...

In this verse, there are subtle points (Laṭā’if):

1. The use of the interrogative form {أءتخذ} (Shall I take): This carries the meaning of the obviousness of the matter. If someone states a fact, like "I will not take," the listener might ask, "Why don't you take?" But if the speaker asks, "Shall I take?" it implies that he is above needing to explain the reason demanded when making a statement. It is as if he is saying, "I consulted (you), and you guided me (to the truth), so I am reflecting on the matter." It is as if he says, "Reflect on the matter, and you will understand without me needing to state it."

2. The phrase {من دونه} (besides Him): This is a wondrous subtlety. After establishing that he worships God by saying {Who created me} (Yā Sīn: 22), it becomes clear that worshipping anyone other than Him is impermissible. If one worships other than God, it necessitates worshipping everything that is associated (as a partner) with the worshipped one, because everything else is needy, dependent, and created (Ḥādith). If he had simply said, "I will not take gods," it could be argued that this differs depending on whether the god taken is other than the Creator, which would logically require taking countless gods. But since his God is his Lord and Creator, taking other gods is not permissible.

3. The word {أءتخذ} (Shall I take): This indicates that anything else is not a god, because what is taken (adopted) is not truly a god. This is why the Almighty said: {nor has He taken a consort or a son} (Al-Jinn: 3), and {And say: Praise be to Allah, Who has not taken a son} (Al-Isrā’: 111). This is because God truly cannot have a son, and it is impossible. However, the Christians claimed that they adopted Jesus as God's son. Therefore, He said: {nor has He taken a son} (Al-Furqān: 2).

However, one might ask why the Almighty commanded His Prophet: {So take Him as an agent (Wakīl)} concerning God, where He says: {Lord of the East and the West; there is no god but He, so take Him as an agent} (Al-Muzzammil: 9). We reply that this is a command related to a new state. In the beginning, a person has little patience and weak strength, so it is not appropriate for him to abandon worldly means and say, "I rely (on God)." It is not proper for one of us to neglect all matters, leave his children in dire need, fail to provide for his family's sustenance, and sit in the mosque with his heart attached to receiving gifts from Zayd and ʿAmr. But when his heart is strengthened by worship, he forgets himself, let alone others, and turns to worshipping his Lord with his entire heart, abandoning the world and its means, and entrusting his affairs to God—at that point, he becomes one of the righteous and excellent ones. Thus, God said to His Messenger: "You know that all matters are in God's hand, and you have known God with true knowledge, and you are certain that the East, the West, what is between them, and what occurs therein are by God's command, and there is no god to seek for the fulfillment of needs except Him. So take Him as an agent, and entrust all your affairs to Him." You have ascended beyond the rank of one commanded to earn lawful provision, whereas before you were trading lawfully. The meaning of {So take Him as an agent} is concerning all your affairs.

And concerning His saying: {will not avail me}: This has two interpretations. The first is that it is descriptive, as if He said: "Shall I take gods besides Him who will not avail me when the Most Merciful wills harm for me." The second is that it is a new, independent statement, as if he said: "I will not take gods besides Him."

He said: {If the Most Merciful intends harm for me} and did not say, "If the Most Merciful intends harm to me" (using the preposition bi). Similarly, the Almighty said: {If Allah intends harm for me, can they remove His harm?} (Az-Zumar: 38) and did not say, "If Allah intends harm to me."

We say: When a transitive verb requires one object, if it is made to take a second object, it often takes a preposition, similar to how an intransitive verb becomes transitive with a preposition (e.g., dhahaba bihi - he took him away). A eloquent speaker places the object that is most directly affected by the verb without a preposition, and the other object with a preposition. For example, if someone asks about a person's state, one might say: "The king singled him out for honor and favor" (ikhtaṣṣahu al-maliku bi-l-karāmah). If asked, "What about the king's honor?" one might reply: "He singled it out for Zayd" (ikhtaṣṣahā bi-Zayd), making the object of the question the direct object without a preposition because it is the primary focus.

Knowing this, the purpose here is to clarify that the servant is under God's disposition, who turns him as He wills in misery or prosperity. The harm itself is not the primary focus of the statement, especially since the speaker is a believer hoping for mercy and blessing based on his faith in God's promise. This is supported by His preceding statement: {Who created me} (Yā Sīn: 22), where he made himself the object of creation (mafʿūl al-fiṭrah); similarly, he makes himself the object of intention (mafʿūl al-irādah), and the mention of harm occurs secondarily. The same applies to {If Allah intends harm for me} (Az-Zumar: 38); the primary purpose is to show that things happen according to God's will, not specifically the harm. This is supported by His earlier statement: {Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant?} (Az-Zumar: 36), meaning he is under His will.

This is further supported by considering His saying: {Who can protect you from Allah if He intends evil for you?} (Al-Aḥzāb: 17), where the structure deviates: the object without a preposition is al-sū’ (evil), which is like ḍarr (harm), while the object with a preposition is the accountable person (the addressee). This is because the intent there was to mention harm to instill fear, as they (the disbelievers) deserve punishment for their disbelief, making harm the primary focus to deter them.

If one asks: But God also mentioned mercy there, saying: {or intends mercy for you} (Al-Aḥzāb: 17)? We reply that this was mentioned as a complement to establish a comprehensive division (of possibilities). This is supported by His saying afterward: {and they will find for themselves no protector or helper besides Allah} (Al-Aḥzāb: 17). Mercy was mentioned only to complete the exhaustive categorization. Similarly, if you reflect on {They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts. Say: Then who can avail you against Allah at all if He intends harm for you or intends} (Al-Fatḥ: 11), the discourse is also directed at disbelievers, and the mention of benefit occurs secondarily to complete the categorization. This is supported by {But Allah has ever been, of what you do, Acquainted} (Al-Fatḥ: 11), which serves as a warning. This is like His saying: {Indeed, we or you are either on a right guidance or in a manifest error} (Saba’: 24). The intent is: "I am on guidance, and you are in error." If He had said this directly, it would have been rejected, so He used categorization. Similarly here, the intent is that harm will befall you, and to counter the objection, He mentioned both harm and benefit.

He said here: {If the Most Merciful intends} (yurīdu - present tense), but in Az-Zumar: {If Allah intends} (arāda - past tense). What is the wisdom in choosing the past tense there and the present tense here, and mentioning the Intender by the name Ar-Raḥmān here and Allāh there?

We say: Regarding the past and future tenses: the conditional in (if) turns the past tense into a future meaning. This is because what is mentioned here follows statements in the future/present tense, such as {Shall I take} and {And what is it with me that I should not worship} (Yā Sīn: 22). What is mentioned there follows statements in the past tense, such as {Have you seen?} (Az-Zumar: 38). Similarly, in {And if Allah touches you with harm} (Al-Anʿām: 17), the preceding context is in the future tense: {And whoever turns away from that} (Al-Anʿām: 16) and {Indeed, I fear if I disobey} (Al-Anʿām: 15).

The wisdom is that the disbelievers were threatening the Prophet (PBUH) with harm from their gods. It is as if the response is: "What you have threatened is what has preceded from you." Here, however, it is the beginning of a statement from the believer to establish a truth, and the response is what could not have originated from them (the polytheists). Thus, the two situations differ.

As for {If Allah intends for me} (Az-Zumar: 38), we have mentioned that Allāh and Ar-Raḥmān are the two specific names for the Necessary Existent, as He said: {Say, "Call [upon] Allah or call [upon] the Most Merciful"} (Al-Isrā’: 110). Allāh denotes Majesty and Greatness, while Ar-Raḥmān denotes Gentleness and Mercy. In Az-Zumar, God is described with might and vengeance in {Is not Allah most mighty, the Avenger?} (Az-Zumar: 37), and what indicates greatness is mentioned, such as {And if you should ask them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?"} (Al-ʿAnkabūt: 61), so the name indicating greatness was used. Here, what indicates mercy is mentioned by saying {Who created me} (Yā Sīn: 22), as creation is a blessing that is the prerequisite for all other blessings. Therefore, He said: {If the Most Merciful intends harm for me}.

Then the Almighty said: {their intercession will not avail me at all, nor will they save me}, following the order of what rational people would do. When someone intends to repel harm from a person afflicted by another, they first seek the best means, which is intercession. If that is accepted, the harm is averted. If not, then: "Their intercession will not avail me, nor are they capable of saving me in any way."

In these verses, it is established that God Almighty is worthy of worship in every aspect:

1. If considered in terms of His essence, He is the Creator (Fāṭir) and the Sovereign Lord (Rabb), deserving of worship whether He subsequently bestows favors or not.
2. If considered in terms of His beneficence, He is the Most Merciful (Raḥmān).
3. If considered in terms of fear, He is the one who repels harm.

It is also established that nothing else is fit to be worshipped in any way, because even the lowest level of their supposed power is contingent upon God's will. If God wills it, they might avert something, but if He does not will it, there is no need for an averter.

! 7 < {Indeed, in that case, I would be in manifest error.} > 7 !

<