Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Gold Adornments): Verse 81

Issues Discussed:

• {ولد} (walad - son): Hamzah and Al-Kisā’ī read it with a ḍammah on the wāw and a sukūn on the lām (وُلد). The rest read it with a fatḥah on the lām (وَلَد).
• {فأنا أول العابدين} (fa-anā awwalu al-'ābidīn - then I would be the first of those who worship): Nāfi' read {فإنا} (fa-innā) with an elongated fatḥah on the nūn. The rest read it without elongation.

People assumed that the apparent meaning of the verse, "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of those who worship [Him]," implies doubt regarding the affirmation of a son for God, which is impossible. Thus, they felt compelled to interpret the verse metaphorically (ta'wīl).

Al-Razi's View: This is unnecessary. The literal meaning does not necessitate abandoning the apparent sense.

Analysis of the Conditional Sentence (Qadiyya Sharṭiyya):

1. A conditional sentence is composed of two declarative propositions (a condition and a consequence) linked by a conditional particle (like in - if) and a consequence particle (like fa - then).
2. In this verse:
   • The first proposition (the condition) is: "The Most Merciful has a son."
   • The second proposition (the consequence) is: "I am the first of those who worship [Him]."
3. The conditional structure only affirms the implication (the necessity of the consequence following the condition); it does not assert the truth or falsehood of either the condition or the consequence itself.

Four Possibilities for a True Conditional Sentence: A true conditional sentence can be formed from:

1. Two true propositions (e.g., "If man is an animal, then man is a body.")
2. Two false propositions (e.g., "If five is even, then five is divisible by two equal parts." Both parts are false, but the implication is true.)
3. A false condition leading to a true consequence (e.g., "If man were a stone, he would be a body." The condition is false, but the consequence is true, as a false premise can imply a true conclusion.)
4. A true condition leading to a false consequence. This is impossible, as it implies that truth necessitates falsehood.

Applying to the Verse: The statement, "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of those who worship [Him]," is a true conditional sentence composed of:

• A false condition ("The Most Merciful has a son").
• A false consequence ("I am the first of those who worship that son").

Since the structure is analogous to case (2) above (false condition implying a true implication, as seen in the example of the number five), there is no contradiction in accepting the literal meaning.

The Intended Meaning (Literal): "If a son were attributed to the Most Merciful, then I would be the first to worship that son." Just as a slave must serve his master's son if one exists, the Prophet (PBUH) affirms he would fulfill the duty of worship toward that hypothetical son. This structure does not confirm or deny the existence of the son.

Comparison with {لو} (Law - If only): The verse {لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا} (If there were therein gods other than Allah, there would have been ruin in both) uses law, which implies the negation of the consequence if the condition is negated (i.e., since they did not ruin, there are no other gods). The current verse uses in (إن), which only denotes the conditional link, not the negation of the condition.

Conclusion on Literal Meaning: The verse can stand on its literal meaning. The Prophet (PBUH) is saying: "If proof were established for a son, I would acknowledge the obligation to worship him, but no such proof exists; in fact, conclusive proof exists against it."

View of Al-Saddī: Al-Saddī also held that the verse can be taken literally without ta'wīl.

Those who insist on ta'wīl offer several interpretations:

1. Al-Wāḥidī's View: The meaning is: "If the Most Merciful had a son in your estimation (z̧annukum), then I would be the first of those who monotheize God (i.e., deny your claim by worshipping God alone)."
   • This leads to two sub-interpretations, both deemed problematic by Al-Razi:
     • If it means: "If a son truly exists, I am the first denier," this implies the Prophet (PBUH) would insist on falsehood, which is unfitting for a prophet.
     • If it means: "If you claim a son exists, I am the first denier," this is flawed because the Prophet (PBUH) denies the son regardless of their claim, so the claim itself cannot be the condition for his denial.

2. Second View: The meaning is: "If the Most Merciful had a son, I would be the first to feel intense aversion (ānif) to worshipping a son born from a slave." (Some read ʿābidīn as ʿābidayn - two worshippers).
   • This also faces the same logical flaw: the aversion exists whether the claim is made or not, so linking it conditionally is unsound.

3. Third View: The particle in (إن) here is negative. The meaning is: "The Most Merciful does not have a son, and I am the first monotheist among the people of Mecca to affirm He has no son."
   • Al-Razi concludes that resorting to these distant interpretations is only necessary out of perceived compulsion, which he has shown does not exist.

Argument against the Son: God must be Wājib al-Wujūd (Necessary Existent) in Himself. Such an entity is absolute and indivisible. A "son" implies a part separating from the whole to generate a similar being. This is only conceivable for entities whose essence is divisible. Since God's essence is not divisible, attributing a son to Him is impossible.

This is a threat. Since the decisive proof against their claims has been presented, and they remain engrossed in worldly pursuits (wealth, status), leave them to their false play until the promised Day arrives.

Abū ʿAlī suggested that the elevation of Ilāh (God) is as the predicate (khabar) of an omitted subject (mubtada’): "And He is the One who is God in heaven."

This verse strongly indicates that God is not physically situated (mustaqirr) in heaven. His attribution of divinity to heaven is the same as His attribution of divinity to earth. Since He is God of the earth without being physically located there, He must be God of heaven without being physically located there.

Connection to Denying Sonship: This relates to denying the sonship of Jesus (PBUH). God created Jesus by the mere command Kun Fayakūn (Be, and it is) without the mediation of sperm or father. Similarly, God created the heavens and the earth without any such process, yet no sonship is attributed to Him for that creation.

As discussed in Surah Al-An'am, God being Wise and All-Knowing contradicts the possibility of Him having a son.

The word {تبارك} (Tabāraka - Blessed) implies either:

1. Permanence and Endurance: If so, Jesus (PBUH) cannot be His son because Jesus is contingent (came into existence after non-existence), and according to Christians, he died. A contingent being cannot be similar to the Eternal, Everlasting One.
2. Abundance of Goodness: If so, this refers to His being the Creator of the heavens and earth. Jesus (PBUH) was not like this; he needed food, feared the Jews, and was eventually killed (according to Christian belief). How can one with such limitations be the son of the Creator of all things?

{And with Him is the knowledge of the Hour}: Just as His power was described, His knowledge is described. This emphasizes that a Being perfect in essence, knowledge, and power cannot have a son characterized by the weakness and ignorance ascribed to Jesus by the Christians.

The commentators offer two views on who "those whom they invoke besides Him" refers to:

1. Angels, Jesus, and Uzayr: These beings cannot intercede except for those who testify to the truth. (This was revealed in response to Al-Nadr ibn Al-Ḥārith and others who claimed they would take the angels as intercessors). The exception {إلا من شهد بالحق} means "except for the intercession of those who testified to the truth," or perhaps "except for those who testified to the truth."
2. All False Deities: All idols worshipped besides God do not possess intercession, except for those who truly testified to the truth (i.e., the angels, Jesus, and Uzayr), who possess status and intercession with God. "Those who testified to the truth" means those who testified: "There is no god but Allah."

This qualifier indicates that mere verbal testimony is insufficient. This is used by scholars who argue that the faith of one who follows blindly (muqallid) is invalid, as the testimony must be accompanied by true knowledge (ʿilm), which is certainty that cannot be shaken by doubt—a certainty achieved only through proof.

Some scholars (like Al-Jubbā’ī) argued that this verse proves people are compelled to admit God's existence. This is refuted by citing Pharaoh's people who denied Him, and Abraham's people who said: {وَإِنَّا لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّمَّا تَدْعُونَنَا إِلَيْهِ} (And indeed, we are in doubt concerning that to which you invite us).

Rebuttal: We do not concede that Pharaoh's people denied God's existence. Evidence suggests they acknowledged Him but denied His message (e.g., {وَجَحَدُوا بِهَا وَاسْتَيْقَنَتْهَا أَنفُسُهُمْ} - They denied it while their souls were certain of it). Their doubt concerned the Resurrection, divine commands, and prophethood, not the Creator Himself.

God mentions this statement at the beginning and end of the Surah to emphasize: Since they acknowledge that Allah is the Creator of the universe and living beings, how could they proceed to worship base, inert idols that neither harm nor benefit?

{So how are they deluded?} (Fa-annā yu’fakūn): Meaning, how do you lie against God by claiming He commanded you to worship idols?

• Some argued this implies the delusion originates from someone other than themselves.
• The correct view is that when someone misunderstands speech or the path, one asks, "Where are you going?" (i.e., where is this path leading you?). The one who created the inclination toward error in their hearts is God (as the ultimate Creator of all actions), but this does not excuse their deviation.

• Majority: Read with fatḥah on the lām (وَقِيلَهُ - accusative).
• ʿĀṣim and Hamzah: Read with kasrah on the lām (وَقِيلِهِ - genitive).
• Some non-canonical readers: Read with rafʿ (nominative).

Explanations for Accusative (وَقِيلَهُ):

1. It is an accusative of the maṣdar (verbal noun), implying: "And he said his saying, and complained his complaint to his Lord," referring to the Prophet (PBUH). The qīl is accusative by omitting qāla.
2. It is coordinated with the preceding accusative phrase in verse 80: {وَقِيلَهُ} (wa-qīlihi).
3. Al-Zajjāj suggested it is coordinated with the position of the Hour (الساعة), implying: "And with Him is the knowledge of the Hour, and [the knowledge of] his saying..."

Explanations for Genitive (وَقِيلِهِ):

1. Coordinated with the Hour (الساعة), implying: "And with Him is the knowledge of the Hour, and the knowledge of his saying..." (Coordination with a genitive noun is generally acceptable, though sometimes awkward if separated).

Explanations for Nominative (وَقِيلُهُ):

1. It is a new subject, with the predicate being the following phrase.
2. Coordinated with the Hour, assuming an omitted maṣdar: "And [with Him is] the knowledge of the Hour and [the knowledge of] his saying..."

Al-Kashshāf's View: These explanations are weak, especially the separation between the coordinated terms. He suggested that the accusative/genitive readings imply an omitted oath particle (بـ), meaning "By his saying..." or "And by his saying..." The nominative reading implies a direct oath, like ayman Allāh.

Al-Razi's Preference: The most fitting interpretation is the omission of the verb {اذكر} (udhkur - mention), common in the Qur'an: "And mention his saying, 'O my Lord...'" For the genitive reading, it implies: "And mention the time of his saying..."

Qīl is a maṣdar like qawl (saying). The Prophet (PBUH) said: "He forbade qīl wa qāl" (idle talk).

The pronoun in qīlihi refers to the Messenger of God (PBUH).

When the Prophet (PBUH) became weary of their persistent refusal to believe, he informed God that they were a people who would not believe, similar to what Noah (PBUH) said about his people.

{So turn away from them} (Fa-ṣfaḥ ‘anhum): He was commanded to turn away, which implies refraining from supplicating punishment against them. Ṣafḥ means turning away or overlooking.

{And say, "Peace"} (Wa qul salām): This means mutual disengagement or separation. Similar to Abraham's statement to his father: {سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكَ سَأَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ رَبِّي} (Peace be upon you; I will ask my Lord for forgiveness for you).

{And soon they will know}: This is a threat.

Nāfi' and Ibn ʿĀmir read it with a tā’ (addressing the disbelievers directly). The rest read it with a yā’ (referring to the disbelievers in the third person).

Some use this verse to argue that it is permissible to offer the greeting of Salām to disbelievers. Al-Razi notes that if this inference is correct, it implies that the command should be restricted to just saying "Peace" and not the specific Muslim greeting "As-salāmu ʿalaykum."

Ibn ʿAbbās held that {فَاصْفَحْ عَنْهُمْ وَقُلْ سَلَامٌ} is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword (commanding fighting).

Al-Razi's View: Insisting on abrogation in such cases is problematic. A command to perform an action once (like turning away) is fulfilled by one instance. Once done, the linguistic directive is satisfied; there is no need to invoke abrogation. This is similar to the legal principle of Yamin al-Fawr (oath requiring immediate fulfillment), where the context limits the scope of the command.