Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:64

Surah An-Nisa (4): Verse 64

{And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah.}

After Allah commanded obedience to the Messenger (and those in authority) in the preceding verse, and then recounted how some people resorted to false arbiters (Taghut) instead of the Messenger, exposing the ugliness and corruption of their path, Allah encourages obedience to the Messenger again in this verse: {And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah.}

There are several issues concerning this verse:

Al-Zajjaj said that the word min (من) here is an extra particle (silah za'idah). The meaning would then be: "And We did not send a messenger."

Alternatively, it could mean: "We did not send anyone from this category (of messengers) except as such," in which case the emphasis (mubalaghah) is more complete.

Abu Ali al-Jubba'i said the meaning of the verse is: "We did not send any messenger except that We intended for him to be obeyed and believed, and We did not send him to be disobeyed."

He argued that this proves the falsehood of the doctrine of the Mujbirah (those who believe in absolute predestination), because they claim Allah sent messengers to be disobeyed. Since the disobedient person is known to remain in disbelief, Allah has exposed their falsehood in this verse. If there were no other proof in the Quran against their view, this verse alone would suffice. According to the Mujbirah, it should be that messengers were sent to be both obeyed and disobeyed simultaneously. This implies that their disobedience was not intended by Allah, and that Allah only intended for them to be obeyed.

Refutation of Al-Jubba'i's Argument

This line of reasoning is extremely weak, for several reasons:

1. Sufficiency of Partial Obedience: The phrase {except to be obeyed} is satisfied if even one obedient person obeys at one time. It is not a condition for its meaning to be realized that all people obey at all times. Based on this, we agree with the verse: every messenger Allah sent was obeyed by some people at some times. Unless one argues that specifying something implies negating the ruling from everything else—which Al-Jubba'i does not claim—this objection fails under all interpretations.
2. Future Obedience: Why can't the meaning be that every disbeliever will inevitably believe in him near death, as Allah says: {And there is none of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death} (An-Nisa: 159)? Or, this could refer to the belief of everyone on the Day of Resurrection. A description is established if its attribute is proven in some instances or some states.
3. Contradiction with Divine Knowledge: Knowledge of the absence of obedience, while obedience exists, are two contradictory things, and opposites cannot coexist. That knowledge (that obedience will not occur from some) is necessarily true (cannot be non-existent). Therefore, obedience must be impossible to exist (from those who will disbelieve). Allah knows all things, so He knows that obedience is impossible for them. One who knows a thing is impossible cannot will it. Thus, by this conclusive proof, it is impossible for Allah to will obedience from the disbeliever. Therefore, this phrase must be interpreted differently: the meaning is not will (iradah), but command (amr). The interpretation becomes: "And We did not send any messenger except to be commanded to be obeyed." With this interpretation, the objection falls away.

Our scholars (Ahl al-Sunnah) argue that this verse proves that nothing—no good, evil, disbelief, faith, obedience, or disobedience—occurs except by the Will of Allah.

The proof is His statement: {except to be obeyed by permission of Allah}.

The word idhn (permission/license) here cannot mean command (amr) or obligation (taklif). If it meant command, the verse would mean: "We did not send a messenger except that Allah commanded obedience to him." This would be a repulsive repetition, as the very definition of sending a messenger implies Allah commanded obedience to him.

Therefore, idhn must mean Divine Tawfiq (success/enabling) and I'anah (assistance).

The verse then means: "And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed through Our enabling and assistance." This explicitly states that Allah did not will the obedience of all people; rather, He only wills it from those whom He has enabled and assisted—the believers. As for those deprived of enabling and assistance, Allah did not will obedience from them. Thus, this verse is one of the strongest proofs for our doctrine.

The verse indicates that every messenger must come with a Shari'ah (law) by which he is to be obeyed and followed. If a messenger only called people to follow the law of the messenger before him, he would not truly be the one obeyed; rather, the preceding messenger who established that law would be obeyed. Yet, Allah judges every messenger to be obeyed.

The verse proves that the Prophets (peace be upon them) are infallible from sins and errors. This is because the verse necessitates absolute obedience to them. If they committed a sin, we would be obligated to emulate them in that sin, making that sin obligatory upon us. But since it is a sin, it must be forbidden for us. This leads to the simultaneous obligation and prohibition of the same act, which is impossible.

A Counter-Argument: Didn't you (the Ash'aris) argue against Al-Jubba'i by stating that {except to be obeyed} does not imply universality ('umum)? How can you use it as proof in this issue, which requires the implication of universality?

Our Reply: The apparent meaning (dhahir) of the wording suggests universality. However, we abandoned the universality in the previous issue due to the conclusive rational proof we presented that it is impossible for Allah to will faith from a disbeliever. Because of that overriding rational obstacle, we diverted the apparent meaning away from universality. In this current issue (infallibility), there is no conclusive rational proof that necessitates rejecting the infallibility of the Prophets. Thus, the difference is clear.

Surah An-Nisa (4): Verse 65

{But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves, and then find within themselves no discomfort at what you have judged, and submit in full submission.}

There are two views:

1. The Hypocrites: It refers to the hypocrites mentioned previously. If, when they wronged themselves by resorting to the Taghut instead of the Messenger, they came to the Messenger, showed remorse for what they did, repented, and asked the Messenger to seek forgiveness for them, they would find Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
2. The Incident of the Hypocrites' Plot: Abu Bakr al-Asamm narrated that a group of hypocrites conspired against the Prophet (PBUH). They entered upon him with that malicious intent. Jibril informed the Prophet (PBUH) of their plot. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "A group has entered intending something they will not attain. Let them stand up and seek forgiveness from Allah so that I may seek forgiveness for them." They did not stand up. He said: "Stand up, O so-and-so, stand up, O so-and-so," until he counted twelve men. They stood up and said: "We intended what you mentioned, and we repent to Allah for wronging ourselves. Ask forgiveness for us." He replied: "Now leave! I was closer to seeking forgiveness for you at the beginning, and Allah was closer to answering. Leave me!"

Someone might ask: If they repented and sought forgiveness from Allah correctly, would their repentance not be accepted? What is the benefit of adding the Messenger's seeking forgiveness to their own?

The answers are threefold:

1. Resorting to the Taghut was a violation of Allah's ruling, and it was also an offense against the Messenger (PBUH), causing him distress. Whoever has such a sin must apologize for that sin to others. Therefore, they were required to ask the Messenger to seek forgiveness for them.
2. Since they were not satisfied with the Messenger's judgment, their action showed rebellion (tamarrud). When they repent, they must do what removes that rebellion, which is going to the Messenger (PBUH) and asking him to seek forgiveness.
3. Perhaps when they offered repentance themselves, they did so imperfectly. When the Messenger's seeking forgiveness is added, their repentance becomes worthy of acceptance. (And Allah knows best.)

Why did Allah say: {and the Messenger seeks forgiveness for them} instead of addressing the Prophet directly: "and you seek forgiveness for them"?

This is out of reverence (ijlal) for the Messenger (PBUH). When they come to him, they have come to the one whom Allah singled out for prophethood, honored with revelation, and made an intermediary between Him and His creation. Allah does not reject the intercession of one who holds such a status. The benefit of switching from the second person (addressing the Prophet) to the third person (referring to the Prophet) is what we have mentioned.

The verse proves with certainty that Allah accepts the repentance of the repentant. When Allah mentioned their seeking forgiveness, He followed it with: {they would surely find Allah Accepting of Repentance, Merciful}. This response is only valid if the meaning of {Accepting of Repentance, Merciful} is that He accepts their repentance and shows mercy to their supplication, and does not reject their seeking of forgiveness.