| An-Nisa (The Women): (39) And what would it be upon them...

Issues Discussed Here:

It is an interrogative statement implying reproach (in the sense of "What harm could possibly come to them?").

Alternatively:

1. (Mādhā) could be a single noun, meaning: "And what thing is upon them [if they believed]?"
2. (Dhā) could mean "that which" (like alladhī), and (Mā) alone is the noun, meaning: "And what is that which is upon them if they believed?"

Those who argue that faith is valid through mere imitation (following others without proof) use this verse as evidence.

They argue that the phrase {And what would it be upon them if they believed} suggests that attaining faith is extremely easy. If requiring deep reasoning (istidlāl) were necessary, it would be extremely difficult—so difficult that people spend their entire lives without completing their reasoning. This ease implies that mere imitation is sufficient.

The response from the Theologians (Mutakallimūn): The difficulty lies in the details of belief. However, the fundamental proofs (on a general level) are easy. Know that this discussion has great depth.

The majority of the Mu'tazila used this verse to argue for their principles, providing several analogies:

1. Al-Jubbā'ī argued: If they were incapable [of believing], God would not say this to them. It is like telling someone being punished in Hell: "What would it be upon them if they left it and went to Paradise?" (implying they could leave). Or telling a starving person who cannot access food: "What would it be upon him if he ate?"

2. Al-Ka'bī argued: It is not permissible for disbelief to occur, and then God says, "What would it be upon him if he believed?" This is like telling someone who has become ill: "What would it be upon him if he were healthy?" Or telling a woman: "What would it be upon her if she were a man?" Or telling an ugly person: "What would it be upon him if he were beautiful?" Just as it is inappropriate for a rational person to say such things, it is inappropriate for God Almighty. This refutes the argument that even if it is improper for others, it is permissible for God because sovereignty belongs to Him.

3. Qāḍī 'Abd al-Jabbār argued: It is not permissible for a rational person to instruct his agent to manage an estate, then imprison him so he cannot leave the confinement, and then say to him: "What would it be upon you if you managed the estate?" Since anyone who speaks like this is considered foolish, it proves that such a statement is impermissible for God.

This summarizes the examples they used.

Note: The Mu'tazila frequently rely on arguments based on praise/blame and reward/punishment. Their opponents often counter with arguments concerning God's Knowledge ('Ilm) and the Divine Call (Dā'ī). There is no need to repeat those counter-arguments here.

Then God Almighty said: {And God was All-Knowing}

This means that the intention behind showing off (riyā') is an internal, hidden matter. God clarifies that He is equally knowledgeable of the inner states of affairs as He is of their outward manifestations. When a person believes this, it acts as a deterrent against internal vices, such as the inclination toward hypocrisy (nifāq), showing off (riyā'), and seeking fame (sum'ah).

! 7 < { Indeed, God does not wrong [anyone] by an atom's weight, and if there should be a good deed, He will multiply it and give from Himself a great reward. } > 7 !

<