Al-An'am (The Cattle): Verse 38

Issues Regarding Verse Structure (Nathm)

There are two main perspectives on the connection (Nathm) between this verse and the preceding ones:

First View: The preceding verse established that if the revelation of further manifest miracles were beneficial for the addressees (disbelievers), God would have sent them. Since He did not, it implies that revealing them would harm the interests of the accountable. To affirm that God indeed considers the welfare of His servants and is gracious to them, He follows this by stating: {And no moving creature on the earth, nor any bird that flies with its two wings, but they are nations like you}. This demonstrates the extent of God's grace, care, mercy, and benevolence towards all creatures, just as is observed and felt. If His signs of care reach all animals, then surely, if revealing those overwhelming miracles were beneficial for humankind, He would have revealed them, as He has not withheld benefits from any animal regarding its welfare. This proves that God withheld those miracles because revealing them would disrupt the interests of the accountable. This is the connection between this verse and the previous one.

Second View (The Judge's Opinion): Since God mentioned the disbelievers and established that they will return to Him and be gathered, He follows this by saying: {And no moving creature on the earth, nor any bird that flies with its two wings, but they are nations like you} to indicate that gathering and resurrection apply to beasts just as they apply to humans.

Second Issue: The Scope of "Moving Creature" and "Bird"

Animals are either creatures that crawl/move (دابة) or creatures that fly. All creatures created by God fall into one of these two categories.

First Question: Some animals do not fit these two categories, such as sea creatures (fish) that swim and live in water. Answer: It is not unlikely that they are described as dābbah (moving creature) because they move/crawl in the water, or they are like birds because they swim in the water, just as birds swim in the air. However, describing them as dābbah is linguistically closer than describing them as flying.

Second Question: What is the benefit of restricting the dābbah to being "on the earth"? Answer (Two aspects):

1. It specifies creatures on earth rather than those in the sky as proof by the more apparent case, as celestial creatures, though created like us, are less visible.
2. The purpose of this statement is to show that since God's care extends to these animals, if revealing overwhelming miracles were beneficial, God would not have prevented it. This purpose is best achieved by mentioning those of a lower rank than humans, not those of a higher rank. Therefore, the dābbah is restricted to being "on the earth."

Third Question: What is the benefit of saying, {that flies with its two wings}, when every bird flies with its two wings? Answer (Several aspects):

1. This description is for emphasis, like saying "a female ewe" or "I spoke to him with my mouth and walked to him with my feet."
2. Sometimes, one might tell a servant, "Fly (i.e., hurry) for my need," implying speed, not necessarily literal flight with wings. The mention of wings clarifies that the intended meaning here is actual flight.
3. God described angels as {those having wings, two, three, or four} (Fatir: 1). Mentioning {that flies with its two wings} here is to exclude the angels, as the goal of this statement is achieved by mentioning creatures lower in rank than humans, not those higher.

Fourth Question: How is it stated {but they are nations (umam)} (plural) when dābbah (moving creature) and ṭā'ir (bird) are singular? Answer: Since {And no moving creature... nor any bird} implies totality (universal negation), making it unnecessary to say "no moving creatures or birds," the phrase {but they are nations (umam)} is interpreted according to the meaning (the collective sense) implied by the preceding negation.

Fifth Question: Regarding the phrase {but they are nations like you}: Al-Farrā' said that every species of beast is considered a ummah (nation). A Hadith is cited: "If dogs were not a nation among nations, I would have ordered them to be killed." Thus, dogs are considered a ummah.

If this is established, the verse indicates that these creatures are like us (amthālukum). However, the verse does not specify in which aspects this similarity occurs. It cannot mean similarity in all respects, as that would imply similarity in physical form and creation, which is false. Thus, the specific aspect of similarity is unclear, and it needs clarification.

Answer: Differences of Opinion on the Aspect of Similarity:

First Opinion (Reported by Al-Wāḥidī from Ibn 'Abbās): The similarity refers to their recognition, glorification, praise, and declaration of God's oneness (Tawḥīd). A large group of commentators hold this view, citing verses like {And there is not a thing but glorifies His praise} (Al-Isrā': 44) and {He knows each one's prayer and glorification} (An-Nūr: 41), as well as God addressing the ant and the hoopoe. Abu Ad-Dardā' stated that the intellects of beasts are only aware of four things: recognizing God, seeking sustenance, recognizing male and female, and their mutual readiness for each other. A Hadith is also narrated that whoever kills a bird wantonly will come on the Day of Judgment crying out to God, "O Lord, this one killed me in vain; he did not benefit from me, nor did he let me eat from the earth's insects."

Second Opinion: The similarity is in being nations/groups, being created such that they resemble one another, find comfort in each other, and reproduce like humans. However, the questioner might object that this is already known to everyone, so stating it offers no significant benefit.

Third Opinion: The similarity is in the fact that God manages, creates, and sustains their provision. This is close to the second opinion, resembling a statement of something known by necessity.

Fourth Opinion: They are similar to us in that they will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment to have their rights fulfilled, as narrated in the Hadith: "The hornless sheep will have retribution exacted from the horned one."

Sixth Opinion (The one chosen based on the verse's structure): The disbelievers demanded manifest miracles from the Prophet (PBUH). God clarified that His care reaches all animals just as it reaches humans. For the One whose mercy and grace extend so far that He is not stingy with beasts, it is even more fitting that He is not stingy with humans. Thus, God's refusal to show those overwhelming miracles indicates that there was no benefit for the questioners in revealing them, and revealing them according to their demand would result in great harm returning to them.

Seventh Opinion (Reported by Abu Sulaymān Al-Khaṭṭābī from Sufyān ibn 'Uyaynah): When reading this verse, Ibn 'Uyaynah said: "There is no human on earth who does not possess a resemblance to some beast." Some advance like a lion, some run like a wolf, some bark like a dog, some strut like a peacock, and some resemble a pig—if offered good food, they leave it, but if a man gets up from his excrement, they wallow in it. Similarly, we find among humans those who, if they hear fifty pieces of wisdom, retain none of it, but if they make one mistake, they memorize it and repeat every gathering they attend. He then advised: "Know, my brother, that you only associate with beasts and predators, so be extremely cautious." This summarizes what has been said on this point.

Third Issue: The View of Transmigration (Tanāsukh)

Those who believe in Tanāsukh (transmigration of souls) hold that if human souls are righteous, obedient, and associated with the angelic realm, they remain so. If they are wicked, ignorant, and disobedient, they are transferred into the bodies of animals. The more wicked the soul and the more deserving of punishment, the lower and more afflicted the animal body it is transferred into.

They use this verse as proof, arguing that the explicit meaning of the verse indicates that every creature is "like us," and the term "similarity" (mumāthalah) necessitates equality in all essential attributes, though similarity in accidental, separable attributes is not considered necessary for similarity. Furthermore, proponents of Tanāsukh add that the souls of all animals know their Lord and know their own fortune or misfortune. They also claim that God sent a messenger from their own kind to every species, citing that the verse establishes animals as umam (nations), and God says: {And there was no nation but a warner had come to it} (Fāṭir: 24), which explicitly states that a messenger was sent to every group of these animals. They reinforce this with the story of the hoopoe, the ant, and other stories in the Qur'an.

Rebuttal: We have already refuted the doctrine of Tanāsukh with strong evidence from the science of Usūl (principles of jurisprudence). As for this verse, we have mentioned sufficient evidence confirming that the similarity occurs in some of the mentioned aspects, making it unnecessary to affirm what the proponents of Tanāsukh claim.

Verse 39: {We have not neglected anything in the Book}

Regarding the meaning of "the Book" (al-Kitāb), there are two views:

First View: It refers to the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawḥ al-Maḥfūẓ) in the heavens, which contains the complete details of all created beings and their conditions, as stated in the Hadith: "The Pen has dried concerning what is to be until the Day of Resurrection."

Second View (More Apparent): It refers to the Qur'an. This is more apparent because when the definite article al- is prefixed to a singular noun, it refers to the previously known or established concept. For Muslims, the previously known Kitāb is the Qur'an.

If this is established, one might ask: How can God say, {We have not neglected anything in the Book} when it does not contain the details of medical science, the details of mathematics, or the details of many other discussions and sciences, nor the details of people's doctrines and proofs in Usūl and Furū' (principles and branches of jurisprudence)?

Answer: The statement {We have not neglected anything in the Book} must be restricted to explaining the matters whose knowledge and comprehension are obligatory. This is supported in two ways:

1. The term tafrīṭ (neglect/falling short) is used in negation only regarding what should have been explained. No one is accused of neglect for failing to do what is unnecessary. This term is only used when one falls short of what is required.
2. Almost all verses of the Qur'an indicate, either explicitly, implicitly, or necessarily, that the purpose of its revelation is to explain the religion, knowledge of God, and knowledge of God's rulings. Since this restriction is known from the entire Qur'an, the absolute term here must be understood in light of that restriction.

Regarding the claim that the Book does not contain all sciences of Usūl and Furū':

• Usūl (Principles): It contains all the fundamental principles in the most eloquent manner. As for the narrations of specific schools of thought and detailed opinions, there is no need for them.
• Furū' (Branches): Scholars have two views here:
  1. The Qur'an indicates that Consensus (Ijmāʿ), the report of a single trustworthy narrator (khabar al-wāḥid), and Analogy (Qiyās) are authoritative in Sharia. Therefore, whatever is established by one of these three principles is, in reality, established in the Qur'an. Al-Wāḥidī provided three examples:
     • Example 1 (Cursing the Tattooist): Ibn Mas'ūd said he did not curse those whom God cursed in His Book (tattooists, those who seek tattooing, hair-joiners, and those who seek hair-joining). When a woman who had read the whole Qur'an questioned him, he replied that she would have found it if she had read it properly. The proof is God's command: {Whatever the Messenger has brought you, take it} (Al-Hashr: 7), and the Prophet (PBUH) cursed them. My commentary: This meaning can be found more explicitly in the Qur'an: God cursed Satan, then listed his evil deeds, including {and I will surely command them to change the creation of Allah} (An-Nisā': 119). This verse implies that altering creation incurs a curse.
     • Example 2 (The Muhram Killing a Gnat): Al-Shāfi'ī claimed he could answer any question from the Book of God. When asked about a pilgrim (muḥrim) killing a gnat, he said, "Nothing is due." When asked where this was in the Book, he cited {Whatever the Messenger has brought you, take it}, and the Prophet's command to follow the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. He then cited 'Umar's ruling that the pilgrim owes nothing for killing a gnat. My commentary: A closer path is that the default status of Muslims' wealth is inviolability (e.g., verses on earning and not consuming wealth unjustly). Since killing the gnat is not trade, the default prohibition remains, meaning nothing is due. Al-Shāfi'ī's path involved four steps of general reasoning based on the Prophet's authority and the Caliphs' guidance.
     • Example 3 (The Adulterous/Unchaste Servant): The father of the servant who committed fornication asked the Prophet (PBUH) to judge by the Book of God. The Prophet swore he would, and judged flogging and exile for the servant, and stoning for the woman if she confessed. Al-Wāḥidī noted that flogging and exile are not explicitly mentioned in the text, proving that whatever the Prophet judged is the essence of God's Book. My commentary: This is correct because God says: {to clarify to the people what was sent down to them} (An-Naḥl: 44).

Thus, these examples prove that since the Qur'an established the authority of Consensus, khabar al-wāḥid, and Qiyās, any ruling established by these means is truly established by the Qur'an. Hence, God's statement {We have not neglected anything in the Book} is valid. This is the position supported by the majority of jurists.

Objection to this view: The essence of this argument is that since the Qur'an established the authority of khabar al-wāḥid and Qiyās, any ruling derived from them is truly derived from the Qur'an. However, applying {We have not neglected anything in the Book} this way is inappropriate because this statement is made to glorify the Book. If we interpreted it this way, the glorification would be weak, as the same meaning could be conveyed by simply saying, "Act upon Consensus, khabar al-wāḥid, and Qiyās." This lesser statement would not warrant the great praise given here unless this meaning could not be derived through a more concise method. Since we showed it can be derived concisely, this interpretation cannot be the intended meaning for praising the Qur'an.

Second View: The Qur'an is complete in explaining all rulings. The principle is the innocence of liability (barā'at al-dhimmah) for all obligations. Establishing liability requires a separate proof. Specifying all categories for which no ruling was given is impossible because those categories are infinite, and specifying the infinite is impossible. Specification is only possible for a finite number. For example, God might have a thousand obligations, which He mentioned in the Qur'an, and commanded the Prophet (PBUH) to convey a thousand other obligations. This view is reinforced by {Today I have perfected your religion for you} (Al-Mā'idah: 3) and {nor anything green or dry but is in a clear Book} (Al-An'ām: 59). This is the position of those who hold that the Qur'an covers everything, though a full exposition belongs to Usūl al-Fiqh.

Regarding {from anything} (min shay'in): Al-Wāḥidī suggested that min is superfluous, as in "No one came to me." The meaning would be: "We left nothing in the Book that We did not explain." My commentary: The word min here is for partiality (tab'īḍ), meaning: "We have not neglected even a small part of anything that the accountable needs to know in this Book." This represents the utmost emphasis on completeness regarding what is necessary for the believer to know.

Verse 39 (Conclusion): {Then to their Lord they will be gathered}

This means God will gather the beasts and birds on the Day of Resurrection. This is supported by {And when the wild beasts are gathered} (At-Takwīr: 5) and the Hadith: "Retribution will be exacted for the hornless from the horned."

Regarding the intellects of the rational concerning this gathering, there are two views:

First View (Mu'tazila): God gathers beasts and birds to deliver compensation ('awaḍ) to them. Since inflicting pain upon them without prior wrongdoing is unjust, and compensation is necessary for justice, God gathers them to deliver that compensation.

Second View (Our Companions/Ash'arites): It is impossible for obligation (wujūb) to be incumbent upon God. Rather, God gathers them merely by His Will and Divine prerogative (mashī'ah and irādah). They argue against the necessity of compensation for God based on three proofs:

1. Proof 1: Obligation implies that failure to perform it results in blame. Since God is inherently perfect, He cannot be subject to blame due to an external matter. What is essential to His being cannot be negated by an external contingency.
2. Proof 2: God is the Owner of all created things, and an owner acts as He wills in His property without needing compensation.
3. Proof 3: If inflicting harm on another for the sake of compensation were good, then it would be good for us to inflict harm on others while obligating compensation without their consent, which is false. Thus, the view of necessary compensation is false.

First Branch: Every animal that deserved compensation from God for the pain it suffered, and did not receive it in this life, God must gather it in the Hereafter to provide that compensation (according to rational necessity). However, God informed us that He gathers all of them, so this is confirmed by transmission (sam'iyyah). We say that some animals do not deserve compensation because they might live their entire lives free from pain and die without any suffering, as it is not proven that death must involve pain. In such a case, they deserve no compensation.

Second Branch: For every animal God permitted to be slaughtered, the compensation is upon God. This includes animals slaughtered for food, those slaughtered because they are harmful (like predatory beasts or harmful insects), those afflicted by disease, or those burdened with heavy loads or difficult labor. If humans oppress them, the compensation is upon the oppressor. If some animals oppress others, the compensation is upon the oppressor among them. Objection: If an animal whose meat is not eaten is slaughtered properly (tadhkiyah), upon whom is the compensation? Answer: That is oppression, and the compensation is upon the slaughterer. This is why the Prophet (PBUH) forbade slaughtering animals except for food.

Third Branch: The compensation refers to immense benefits whose majesty and loftiness are such that if the beast were rational and knew that the only way to obtain that benefit was by enduring the slaughter, it would consent to it. This is the compensation that justifies inflicting pain and harm.

Fourth Branch: Al-Qāḍī and most Basran Mu'tazila hold that the compensation is finite/terminated. Al-Qāḍī says this is the view of most commentators, as they hold that after providing the compensation, God turns them into dust, at which point the disbeliever says, "I wish I were dust." Abu Al-Qāsim Al-Bakhilī argued that the compensation must be perpetual. Al-Qāḍī countered that it is permissible for one of us to undertake hard labor for a finite wage. Thus, inflicting pain is not conditional on perpetual compensation. Al-Bakhilī argued that terminating the compensation requires causing the animal's death, which causes pain, which necessitates another compensation, leading to an infinite regress. Answer: It has not been proven by evidence that death cannot be achieved without pain.

Fifth Branch: If one beast deserves compensation from another, and the oppressor beast deserved compensation from God, that compensation is transferred to the oppressed. If not, God completes the compensation for the oppressed. This summarizes the rulings on compensation according to the Mu'tazila.

Verse 40: {And those who deny Our signs are deaf and dumb in darknesses. Whomsoever Allah wills, He leaves astray, and whomsoever He wills, He places on a straight path.}

The meaning is that those who deny the signs are deaf to the truth and mute in articulating it, dwelling in darknesses (of ignorance and misguidance). Whomsoever God wills to leave astray, He leaves him in that state, and whomsoever He wills, He places on a straight path (of guidance).