Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Ornaments): Verse 20

It is known that the Almighty recounted another type of their disbelief and their fallacies, which is their saying: "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them." There are several issues concerning this verse:

Issue 1: The Mu'tazila's Argument

The Mu'tazila argue that this verse proves the invalidity of the view held by the Mujbirah (those who believe in absolute predestination) regarding the idea that the disbeliever's disbelief occurs by God's will. They present two points:

1. The direct statement and subsequent refutation: The Almighty recounts their statement, "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them," which is the explicit assertion of the Mujbirah. Subsequently, the Almighty refutes it by saying, "They have no knowledge of that; they are only guessing." Thus, it is established that He recounted the doctrine of the Mujbirah and immediately followed it with refutation and invalidation, proving this doctrine is false. This is analogous to His saying in Surah Al-An'am: "Those who associate partners [with God] will say, 'If God had willed, we would not have associated partners...' (6:148)" followed by the refutation.

2. Contextual consistency: Before this verse, the Almighty recounted various forms of their disbelief:
   • First: "And they have designated for Him from among His servants a part." (43:15)
   • Second: "And they have made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females." (43:19)
   • Third: "And they say, 'If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them.'" When these three statements are recounted consecutively, and the first two are established as pure disbelief, the third statement must also be disbelief.

The Response of Al-Wahidi (in Al-Basit): Al-Wahidi offered two responses:

1. The response mentioned by Al-Zajjaj: The Almighty's statement, "They have no knowledge of that," refers back to their claims that the angels are females and daughters of God.
2. Their intention in saying, "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them," was to imply that God commanded and approved of their actions. The Almighty then condemned them for this implication.

My Critique of Al-Wahidi's Responses: I find both of these views weak.

• Critique of the first view: The Almighty recounted two false statements and explained their falsehood. Then, He recounted a third, separate doctrine concerning an unrelated matter, and then pronounced it false and threatened them. It is highly improbable that this refutation is directed toward the first two statements, which are distant from it.
• Critique of the second view: This is also weak because the phrase "If the Most Merciful had willed, we would not have worshipped them" does not specify what that Will relates to. Ambiguity contradicts the evidence. Therefore, the implied meaning must be: "If God had willed that we not worship them, we would not have worshipped them." The particle law (if) implies the negation of one thing due to the negation of another. This indicates that God's Will for them not to worship them did not occur, which is precisely the doctrine of the Mujbirah. Thus, the refutation must target this very meaning.

Other Responses: Some have responded by saying they uttered this statement mockingly and sarcastically, which is why they deserved censure.

The Response of the Author of Al-Kashshaf: He offered two counter-arguments:

1. The wording itself does not indicate they spoke mockingly; claiming something without evidence is invalid.
2. The Almighty recounted three things: making angels a part of God, making them female, and their statement about the Will. If we assume the censure for the third statement is because they said it seriously, then the first two statements must also be true if said seriously, which is known to be disbelief. If the censure for the first two is based on the statement itself, but the censure for the third is based on their intent (seriousness), this disrupts the coherence (nadḥm) of the discourse, which is impermissible in God's speech.

The Correct Answer (My View): The correct answer, which I mentioned in Surah Al-An'am, is that they mentioned this statement because they used God's Will for disbelief as evidence that commanding faith would be unjustifiable. They believed that command and Will must align. We hold this belief to be false. Therefore, they were not condemned merely for saying God wills disbelief from the disbeliever, but because they argued: Since God wills disbelief from the disbeliever, it must be ugly/unjust for Him to command the disbeliever to have faith. When we direct the censure and condemnation to this specific implication, the Mu'tazila's argument based on this verse collapses. The full elaboration is in Surah Al-An'am.

Issue 2: The Refutation of Their Claim

The structure implies: It is as if they are saying: When God wills disbelief from the disbeliever and creates the cause for that disbelief, it must be ugly for Him to command the disbeliever to have faith, because such a command is ugly in observable human affairs (ash-shāhid), and thus must be ugly in the unseen (al-ghā'ib).

The Almighty responds: "They have no knowledge of that." Meaning, they have no knowledge of the validity of this analogy (qiyās). This is because the actions and rulings of a human being are based on observing benefits (masālih) and harms (mafāsid), as everything other than God benefits from benefits and is harmed by harms. Thus, their nature and intellect compel them to base their rulings and actions on observing these concerns. However, God Almighty is not benefited by anything nor harmed by anything. How can one definitively claim that He bases His rulings and actions on observing benefits, given this immense difference? Thus, His statement, "They have no knowledge of that," means they have no knowledge of the validity of analogizing the unseen (God) with the observed (humans) in this matter.

Then He says: "They are only guessing." Since the validity of their analogy is not established, it is proven by conclusive evidence that they are liars and guessers in that analogy, because the analogy of the One completely free from need (God) to the needy one who is affected by benefits and harms is inherently false by the basic necessity of intellect.

Issue 3: The Lack of Scriptural Basis

The invalid statement they made must be supported either by reason or by transmission (naql).

1. Reason: This is refuted by His statement, "They have no knowledge of that; they are only guessing."
2. Transmission: This is also refuted by His statement, "Or have We given them a Book before it, to which they hold fast?"

The pronoun in "before it" refers to the Qur'an or the Messenger. The meaning is: Did they find this falsehood in a revealed Book prior to the Qur'an, justifying their reliance upon it? This is mentioned in the context of denial. Since it is established that neither rational proof nor transmitted proof supports their claim, adhering to that statement must be false.

Issue 4: The Reliance on Ancestors (Taqlīd)

The Almighty explains that the reason these ignorant people cling to the path of mere imitation (taqlīd) is an ancient practice. He says: "And similarly, We did not send before you any warner into a town except that its affluent ones said, 'Indeed, we found our fathers following a way of life, and indeed, we are following in their footsteps.'"

The author of Al-Kashshaf noted that the word is read as ‘alā ummatin (with a kasra) or ‘alā ammatin (with a fatḥa). Both derive from the root A-M-M, meaning intention or purpose. Ummah (with kasra) refers to the path that is intended (sought after), like a journey towards a destination. Immah (with fatḥa) refers to the state or condition of the one intending.

If the Book contained nothing but these verses, it would suffice to invalidate the doctrine of mere imitation. The Almighty demonstrated that these disbelievers did not rely on rational proof or transmitted evidence for their beliefs. Instead, they followed only the imitation of their fathers and ancestors. Since the Almighty mentioned these matters in a context of censure and condemnation, it indicates that reliance on mere imitation is false.

Intellectually, imitation is a shared trait between the adherent to falsehood and the adherent to truth. If this group of imitators exists, then groups of their opponents also exist as imitators. If imitation were a path to truth, it would necessitate that a thing and its opposite both be true, which is clearly impossible.

The Almighty explains that the driving force behind adhering to imitation is the love of worldly comforts, laziness, idleness, and the aversion to undertaking the hardship of contemplation and deduction. This is inferred from His statement: "And similarly, We did not send before you any warner into a town except that its affluent ones (mutrafūhā)..."

The mutrafūn are those whom luxury has spoiled (atrafathum an-ni‘mah), making them desire only sensual pleasures and amusements, while hating the effort required to seek the truth. Knowing this, you realize that the root of all afflictions is the love of this world and bodily pleasures, while the root of all good is the love of God and the Hereafter. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The love of the world is the head of every sin."

Issue 5: The Final Challenge and Warning

The Almighty recounts that when He sent a messenger with a religion more rightly guided than their fathers' religion, they responded by saying: "Indeed, we are steadfast in the religion of our fathers. Even if you bring us something better, 'Indeed, we are disbelievers in what you have been sent with.'"

Since they rejected the truth even when it was presented as superior to their inherited path, they were left with no excuse or justification. Therefore, the Almighty said: "So We took vengeance upon them. Then observe how was the end of the deniers." This serves as a threat to the disbelievers.

Surah Az-Zukhruf: Verses 26–31

(The text ends here, transitioning to the next section.)